Hi Georg, > Myself, I use any property/value that gets the job done, whenever I > need > to trigger hasLayout. Loss of "validity" because of proprietary IE CSS > isn't more problematic than use of some "mos-", "webkit-" or "o-" > proprietary CSS ... IMO.
I do not care much about CSS validation, but I see a difference between using a proprietary property like zoom and using vendor-specific extensions [1]. Because these are part of the grammar, they are known to the CSS parser: '-' + vendor identifier + '-' + meaningful name '_' + vendor identifier + '-' + meaningful name But I agree with you, I don't see this as "problematic". [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
