Alan Gresley wrote: > My point is that you do not outline what risk. To say "when there is a > much less riskier solution available" is repeating a mantra that appears > in many places. It not based on reality but is more a warning to > beginners that sending alternative styles to a particular browser is > risker than sending the same style to all browsers.
> I go with the former since it the cleanness way to support IE non > stardard behavior. Knowing what we know now, would Eric Meyers > have supported DOCTYPE switching to allow IE to keep supporting a non > standard quirks mode? The same can be asked, will the web community at > large keeps supporting non standard conditional comments? I don't know Eric so I can't say. Still, I can't agree with your idea that it is just some manta and that there is no real risk involved. Personally I'm a firm believer in workarounds whenever possible to avoid both conditional stylesheets and/or hacks in your CSS. First of all probably 90% of hacks and conditional CSS I've seen in my work experience were created by inexperienced or rushed developers. In that last 10% we have several options before we end up having to actually use a real bad hack. We should first understand the costs and benefits involved in making these decisions for a project whether we end up going with a workaround, a conditional statement, or one of the darker, more evil hacks. -Adam Ducker (http://adamducker.com) ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
