That's not really true, Alan. A site without CSS hacks does not necessarily have to be ugly. I develop table-less ASP.NET sites using CSS and I have never used a single CSS hack or conditional comment, yet my sites are still clean, good-looking and functional in the leading browsers (IE, FF, Safari, and Opera).
-- Francesco Sanfilippo Web Architect and Software Developer http://www.blackcoil.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 402-932-5695 home office 402-676-3011 mobile Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience. Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography. Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month. On 10/13/05, Alan Trick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you don't use CSS hacks you have 2 options. > > 1. Avoid CSS that is buggy in a browser. > > 2. Use other hacks like conditional comments. (Conditional comments > *are* hacks, there just intentional ones) > > Number 1 is simply not an option unless your willing to look like > useit.com or something. Number 2 is hardly any better because when > future browsers come out either they will have fixed their CSS > implementations (and then life is happiness and glee) or they won't. > With CSS it's likely that you will have to do touchups but with > conditional comments you have to write another css file all together. > > Also I don't want an M$ bitching session either. IE7 may not be perfect, > but it's a step towards interopability and standards (which is a really > big thing for Microsoft). I think we should encourage it all we can. > > Peter Firminger wrote: > > If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew > > exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. > > > > I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft are > > seemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we have > > to wait and see what the final release does. > > > > At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge your > > customers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into > > their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hacking > > may require rectification in the future. > > > > Sorry for the smug "told you so", but many people including myself have made > > this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. > > > > Peter > > > > <previously comment="I'm really sick of html emails on this list"> > > I second :) > > > It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried > > to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, > > just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky > > implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. > > </previously> > > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
