> In this case, through the use of either hacks or conditional comments, > it doesn't have to be as limiting. Your argument supports simplifying > backwards compatibility, not simply supporting it. Conditional comments > alone, provides full support for backwards compatibility in IE to the > point that quirks mode does. Conversely, hacks are just another means to > keep things simple without loosing the advances made in IE 6. They may > break in the future, but that heavily depends on the hack.
When you talk about "advancements", what are you referring to? I consider the improvements in style sheet support between Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0 to be pretty insignificant. In fact, I consider the difference in style sheet support from Internet Explorer 5.0 to Firefox 1 to be relatively minor. My reasoning is that I find it easy to design a site which looks almost pixel perfect in both browsers. The link I posted is an example of this. My basis for comparison is the nightmare of time I used to have making sites look the same in Netscape 4.x and Internet Explorer 4.x. I guess my point is, I'm not sure what I'm missing out on by using quirks mode? You seem to think that I'm sacrificing a lot, but in all honesty, I'm not sure what that is. Whatever it is, it had better be worth ugly hacks and a more fragile code base. > Issues in NN 4.0 are easily handled without forcing a modern browser to > perform as an outdated, less than entirely functional (broken?) > implementation. Depending on your needs, you could simply serve NN 4 an > unstyled document. Alternatively, you can use the @import method to hide > CSS as necessary. In either case you are getting the most out of modern > browsers, while still serving a usable document to older browsers. If > you need full blown support for NN 4, then you should base all of your > CSS and markup on that browser's capability. I was not commenting on how to support Netscape 4. In fact, I wasn't even suggesting that you should support Netscape 4. I was taking issue with your claim that quirks mode was an Internet Explorer only feature. You wrote: "...it only allows backwards compatibility in IE, which says nothing of more modern browsers like Mozilla and Firefox." That is simply not true. > By invoking quirks mode you have to do the exact same things you would > for IE 5.x. If you avoid the problem altogether, as you have in the > example you provided, there's no need for a hack or any other work > around. I'm a little lost. Are you agreeing that, by using quirks mode, you obviate the need for the hacks? In any case, there is still a need for a workaround -- at least in the example I provided. Specifically, I used the conditional comment to include an Internet Explorer style sheet which overrides 4 properties in 3 classes. To of those class overrides actually fix a peculiar behavior in Internet Explorer regarding trailing white space on inline elements. Switching to standards mode does not correct that behavior. I assume that it's an Internet Explorer bug but haven't researched it thoroughly. > When you can't avoid the broken box model or choose to use more > semantic markup within your document, IE 6 in quirks mode will break the > box model just like IE 5 does. I don't see how this solves anything > other than allowing you to treat all versions of IE 5+ the same in your > stylesheets. The point is to treat all supported browsers the same. It succeeds to the extent that there are only a few classes that need to be overridden for Internet Explorer. It also accomplishes this without the use of undocumented behaviors and hacks. > On a typical site I may only use a hack or a conditional 3 or 4 times... > the true number depends on the design and how I approach it. Often times > I can avoid it completely, but when it pops up, I simply fix it. Which is my point. I don't want to go back and check all my sites every time Microsoft releases an Internet Explorer patch because I'm relaying on undocumented behavior. > You can do the exact same thing without forcing IE into quirks mode... > That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Rather than create a > conditional for IE 5+ you create one specifically for IE 5.x, while IE 6 > continues to use the correct width settings in your master stylesheet. > The only benefit forcing quirks mode offers is that you can address any > IE 5+ shortcoming in a single "all-ie" stylesheet. If that's the point you're trying to make, then why would you need to use the hacks at all? It seems to me that conditional comments solve the same thing as the hacks. One is supported; one is not. As to the other point, I use quirks mode because it provides the best backward compatibility. For the most part, I don't have to specifically code for backward compatibility. I'm taking advantage of the browser's built in features. > Of course you don't ever have to use a hack. You can avoid it in a > number of ways--in the markup, by using conditionals comments, or by > avoiding the use of margin, padding, and border combinations. OK, but unless I'm really confused, you were arguing for the hacks earlier? > Ok, then you are intentionally making the browser behave incorrectly No. Most browsers provide a compatibility mode specifically for this reason. Ergo, it is not "incorrect". You're choosing to ignore the compatibility mode. That's fine, but I think that, in general, it's better to use documented features than hacks. > and ignoring the CSS 2 spec. You are correct in that I'm choosing not to support the CSS specification to its full extent. As developers, we all pick and choose which standards to support and to what degree. Largely, this is based off how well the rest of the world supports these standards. Obviously, it would be nice if every browser supported the full CSS 2 spec sans-bugs (none do), but I'll take what I can get. > That wasn't a personal attack. Had I called you a elitist asshat who > thinks backasswards, that would have been a personal attack. I was > attacking on your view, not you. My apologies, if you were offended. It > wasn't my intent to pick a fight, I was just offering an alternative > solution to quirks mode. An "elitist asshat who thinks backasswards", huh? Geez, I'm not sure where I got the idea that you were getting personal. I'm a bit amazed that these ideas are so controversial that you would need to "attack" my view point. I would think a simple debate should do. Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187472 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
