On Wed, April 16, 2008 3:07 pm, Bill Brown wrote: > Wow, what a rumpus this stirred up. > I just want to clarify a few things and then I'm gonna let this die. > > @Manfred: > "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." > > Nor would one expect MS to explain how to break out of their proprietary > syntax to target a non-IE browser. At least, _I_ wouldn't expect it. >
Actually, the linked page explicitly shows how to do so: look for the section titled "Downlevel-revealed Conditional Comments". The apparently insulting term "downlevel" can be explained by the fact that, when that document was originally written about nine years ago, Internet Explorer 5 was in fact the only decent browser on the market - the intention was to allow fallback content for such lesser browsers as Netscape 3 and 4. Now that the roles are reversed, simply read "downlevel" as "uplevel" and vice versa, and it should make sense ;-) Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
