Geoff Pack wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
So, old hacks like the 'star html' hack for IE6
(and older versions) is now "perfectly valid" IMO,
while hacks relying on bugs that have survived
into IE7, are extremely unsafe.
'extremely unsafe'? I'd say they are safe until Microsoft releases another IE
version. With their track record, that could be *years*.
Given the choice between littering my html (thousands of pages) with
conditional comments, or adding couple of hacks to a single CSS file, I'll take
the hacks, thank you very much.
Despite all the doomsayers, I had zero problems with pages breaking when IE7
came out.
cheers
Geoff.
I agree with this. If we're going for zen purity, I agree that
theoretically hacks could be a liability.
But seriously, how many years have you been telling yourself the star
hack is unsafe? What did that lack of safety ever mean?
Lack of support for multiple classes can hardly be called a 'bug' at
this point. It's more like a 'feature'.
It's slightly arrogant to believe that you can exploit a program's
invisible weaknesses to cover its visible others; but it's more naive to
believe that Microsoft would tackle hacks like this. Seriously - if
you're going to ascribe IE's dev team the virtue of wanting to tackle
IE's problems, you'd think their priority list would start with
rendering flaws and end with "let's see how css coders are fixing our
browser and screw it up for them".
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
