On 16/04/2008, Bill Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could not more *strongly* disagree with you, and I'm not sure why you are > calling my syntax "incorrect" or "unnecessary" either. If they both do the > same thing, mine not only appears (to me, at least) to be more elegant, but > is shorter and more understandable. By comparison: > > Mine: > <!--[if !IE]> <--> > ... anything at all, including css here > <!--> <![endif]--> > > and yours: > > <!--[if IE]><![if !IE]><![endif]--> > ... anything at all, including css here > <!--[if IE]><![endif]><![endif]--> > > It seems a little odd to call my (correct and occasionally necessary) > syntax "unnecessary" and "incorrect" and then send through a longer, more > complicated syntax to accomplish the same thing. > > Or am I totally missing something here? Yes, there is a documentation about this proprietary syntax (as David Laakso has pointed out) http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537512(VS.85).aspx and certainly your invention is not covered by it. It is not future proof too, as MS may come up with an IE which still recognizes "Downlevel-revealed Conditional Comments" as documented, but not your variant of it.
Regards, Manfred ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
