Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
James Ellis wrote: >>> Conditional statements in HTML such as those used by IE/Windows are >>> a slippery slope and they seriously break a central tenet of >>> programming. They are contained with and >>> comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. It's just plain >>> badness. >> >> I don't follow you here. These comments *are meant to be* parsed by >> IE/Win. > > Wrong.. comments are not meant to be parsed by an interpreter. > Comments are descriptive rather than interpretive. IMHO, the issue here is that you see C.C. as a flaw while I see them as a built-in features. AFAIK, they are *very* reliable, so I'm not really interested in what the interpreter is supposed to parse. Because parsing comments is not an exact science among interpreters anyway... Try this: hello world --> > Taking one step back here from the browser level here to get closer > to the programming layer would be good. The result of the use of code > in comments is being focused on here rather than how the result was > made. In programming, if we reach a result that appears to work based > on poor coding, we don't have a solution to the problem - we have a > workaround based on exploitable hacks. Mistakes building on mistakes. I do not consider CC as hacks "per se". > Forget that it's IE for a second and look at what is happening in the > programming layer. There is an interpreter that is parsing the code, > when it comes upon a comment section it blithely ignores the fact the > programmer has escaped out of the interpreted part of the script and > into the descriptive part of the script. "Oh, you didn't want me to > parse that but I'll do it anyway -- just to be sure..." where could > this end up? I don't know but I sure don't like the idea of any > interpreter parsing comments, with unexpected results. My point is that the interpreter is not guessing anything, it is built to check if there is a conditional expression passed the "--". > I agree with you both that it works in this situation, but it's based > on flawed programming principles and in doing this we've exposed the > fact that the IE interpreter parses what's in the comment, something > that's not for the interpreter to consume. Place something benign in > the comment that is then interpreted as an action to be carried out - > bang! the interpreter falls over or worse. It's a seriously flawed > method of developing applications. The method is flawed only when badly implemented. But that's true with about everything... Within regular comments include an odd number of pair of these "--" and bang! >> What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be >>> parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does >>> some unexpected things. >> >> Anything inside coments is supposed to be ignored by UAs so if >> something goes wrong it would be because of the browser and not >> because of what's inside these comments. > > Haven't you just said above that the special conditional comments are > meant to be parsed by IE/Win? I don't follow. I don't either. You're saying: "What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does some unexpected things." IMO, there are only 2 possibilities: 1. The browser is not IE/Win 5+ : the comment is simply ignored 2. The browser is IE/Win 5+ : it checks for the presence of a conditional expression after the "--" I can't think of a third one where "a piece of software" would evaluate what's inside the comment, unless of course we're dealing with a flawed piece of software... >> Comments, of course, can be machine readable such as those used to >>> provide code documentation or CVS/SVN keywords, but these don't >>> actually run anything or fork the code base. >>> >>> This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing - forking the >>> codebase to provide slighlty different content based on the client >>> in use. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the >>> published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome). >> >> IMHO, this is a nice idea, but not very realistic. > > > Well, if we decide not to push the doors won't open. Let's design for modern browsers only? That type of thing? Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have taken the decision to step away from this weird possibility of > IE ... simply because I do not want to be obliged, in a year or two, > to change a bulk of web sites built on that feature. Pat, As long as the vector version in the conditional expression does not target IE 7+ I don't see what make you think that would be needed Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Paul Sturgess wrote: > I've found I can't take advantage of conditional comments as the stand > alone versions of old ie browsers i have don't support them, they all > think they are ie6! You can tweak the registry to fix that: http://labs.insert-title.com/labs/article809.aspx If you don't want to edit your registry settings, you can toggle the version vector while testing with IE5 http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/cc.asp Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
I am also a bit late in the process of giving my humble advice on this thread. Being a C programmer for almost 20 years, I would like to cover my developer's hat for a few minutes. I strongly discourage using comments to obtain ... "conditional compilation/interpretation". In many languages, such as C, conditional compilation is achieved via the C pre-processor, a sort of pre-compilation step. In interpreted languages, the statements are conditionally interpreted via specific directives. Pre-processing directives, or any derivative, is the proper way to achieve "conditional interpretation". I have taken the decision to step away from this weird possibility of IE ... simply because I do not want to be obliged, in a year or two, to change a bulk of web sites built on that feature. ... voilà ... this is my humble contribution. Pat -Original Message- Hi This is a bit late, the internet broke for me for the last few days... On 9/30/05, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Ellis wrote: > > Conditional statements in HTML such as those used by IE/Windows are a > > slippery slope and they seriously break a central tenet of > > programming. They are contained with and > > comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. It's just plain > > badness. > > I don't follow you here. These comments *are meant to be* parsed by > IE/Win. Wrong.. comments are not meant to be parsed by an interpreter. Comments are descriptive rather than interpretive. Taking one step back here from the browser level here to get closer to the programming layer would be good. The result of the use of code in comments is being focused on here rather than how the result was made. In programming, if we reach a result that appears to work based on poor coding, we don't have a solution to the problem - we have a workaround based on exploitable hacks. Mistakes building on mistakes. Forget that it's IE for a second and look at what is happening in the programming layer. There is an interpreter that is parsing the code, when it comes upon a comment section it blithely ignores the fact the programmer has escaped out of the interpreted part of the script and into the descriptive part of the script. "Oh, you didn't want me to parse that but I'll do it anyway -- just to be sure..." where could this end up? I don't know but I sure don't like the idea of any interpreter parsing comments, with unexpected results. I agree with you both that it works in this situation, but it's based on flawed programming principles and in doing this we've exposed the fact that the IE interpreter parses what's in the comment, something that's not for the interpreter to consume. Place something benign in the comment that is then interpreted as an action to be carried out - bang! the interpreter falls over or worse. It's a seriously flawed method of developing applications. Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comments Link : http://webdesign.about.com/od/beginningtutorials/a/aa050503a.htm > What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be > > parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does > > some unexpected things. > > Anything inside coments is supposed to be ignored by UAs so if something > goes wrong it would be because of the browser and not because of what's > inside these comments. Haven't you just said above that the special conditional comments are meant to be parsed by IE/Win? I don't follow. > Comments, of course, can be machine readable such as those used to > > provide code documentation or CVS/SVN keywords, but these don't > > actually run anything or fork the code base. > > > > This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing - forking the > > codebase to provide slighlty different content based on the client in > > use. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the > > published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome). > > IMHO, this is a nice idea, but not very realistic. Well, if we decide not to push the doors won't open. James ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
I've found I can't take advantage of conditional comments as the stand alone versions of old ie browsers i have don't support them, they all think they are ie6! Doing some research into this to, mostly because I wanted to avoid the * html selector, I came across this fantastic article: http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=170511&rl=1 It discusses many of the methods for hacks, however, what really caught my eye was the subject of css filtration systems. I have to say since discovering them i've never looked back. I think it's definitely worth a read, Paul. _ http://www.paulsturgess.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Hi This is a bit late, the internet broke for me for the last few days...On 9/30/05, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:James Ellis wrote:> Conditional statements in HTML such as those used by IE/Windows are a > slippery slope and they seriously break a central tenet of> programming. They are contained with and> comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. It's just plain > badness.I don't follow you here. These comments *are meant to be* parsed by IE/Win. Wrong.. comments are not meant to be parsed by an interpreter. Comments are descriptive rather than interpretive. Taking one step back here from the browser level here to get closer to the programming layer would be good. The result of the use of code in comments is being focused on here rather than how the result was made. In programming, if we reach a result that appears to work based on poor coding, we don't have a solution to the problem - we have a workaround based on exploitable hacks. Mistakes building on mistakes. Forget that it's IE for a second and look at what is happening in the programming layer. There is an interpreter that is parsing the code, when it comes upon a comment section it blithely ignores the fact the programmer has escaped out of the interpreted part of the script and into the descriptive part of the script. "Oh, you didn't want me to parse that but I'll do it anyway -- just to be sure..." where could this end up? I don't know but I sure don't like the idea of any interpreter parsing comments, with unexpected results. I agree with you both that it works in this situation, but it's based on flawed programming principles and in doing this we've exposed the fact that the IE interpreter parses what's in the comment, something that's not for the interpreter to consume. Place something benign in the comment that is then interpreted as an action to be carried out - bang! the interpreter falls over or worse. It's a seriously flawed method of developing applications. Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comments Link : http://webdesign.about.com/od/beginningtutorials/a/aa050503a.htm > What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be> parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does > some unexpected things.Anything inside coments is supposed to be ignored by UAs so if somethinggoes wrong it would be because of the browser and not because of what'sinside these comments. Haven't you just said above that the special conditional comments are meant to be parsed by IE/Win? I don't follow. > Comments, of course, can be machine readable such as those used to> provide code documentation or CVS/SVN keywords, but these don't > actually run anything or fork the code base.>> This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing - forking the> codebase to provide slighlty different content based on the client in> use. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the > published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome).IMHO, this is a nice idea, but not very realistic. Well, if we decide not to push the doors won't open. James
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
I think the future of CSS is not in hack or in conditional comments but in using standard CSS. At the current time this isn't really possible because of Internet Explorer, but from what I've heard about IE7 they plan to do a fair amount of fixing up. Things won't be perfect and support for nice stuff will still be lagging severly, but at least there will be some platform that we can work off of. CSS was designed to be backwards compatible, so as long as you're not doing something that would create an accessibilty issue (like things dissapearing) it would be quite alright to server modern CSS to the browsers that support it and the ones that don't will properly fall back. Of course, I'm basing this on the idea that IE7 will be up to the hype that the guys at msdn are saying, and that MS won't sit down and abandon the web for another half-decade. Drake, Ted C. wrote: > I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into > using the conditional comments. I’m saying this as someone that is > trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older conversions. > > Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this > additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: ignore > this statement. > > IE7 is going to throw a curveball worthy of a World Series ring. While > it is easy and more convenient to throw a * html statement into a CSS, > we need to start seriously looking at separating our hacks into > different style sheets and intelligently using filters and conditional > comments to refer to them. > > I think the approach this person is suggesting is very 2005, we need to > look at 2006 answers. > > I’m dreading the idea of inserting conditional comments into the head > sections of html pages. I’d like to insert it into the main.css file > that imports more sophisticated styles. I have been overwhelmed lately > and haven’t been able to test any answers to this. Does anyone have a > suggestion? > > Imagine teasing someone that their CSS is “So 2005!” Did I just coin a > term? Has Joe Clark already coined this one? > > Ted > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
James Ellis wrote: > Conditional statements in HTML such as those used by IE/Windows are a > slippery slope and they seriously break a central tenet of > programming. They are contained with and > comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. It's just plain > badness. I don't follow you here. These comments *are meant to be* parsed by IE/Win. > What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be > parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does > some unexpected things. Anything inside coments is supposed to be ignored by UAs so if something goes wrong it would be because of the browser and not because of what's inside these comments. > Comments, of course, can be machine readable such as those used to > provide code documentation or CVS/SVN keywords, but these don't > actually run anything or fork the code base. > > This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing - forking the > codebase to provide slighlty different content based on the client in > use. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the > published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome). IMHO, this is a nice idea, but not very realistic. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
James Ellis wrote: comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. ... > What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does some unexpected things. Then the software is broken, i.e. it does not adhere to spec. As with any other hack, you're exploiting that broken behaviour...compliant software will be unaffected. This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing However, we still have to contend with pre-90's adherence to standards from the likes of IE5.x. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome). In certain situations, that requires dirtier markup, like additional wrapping divs and such. One or two, perhaps...but if it threatens to go out of hand, a conditional comment is, imho, a lot cleaner than convoluted extra markup. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Hi Conditional statements in HTML such as those used by IE/Windows are a slippery slope and they seriously break a central tenet of programming. They are contained with and comments in code are not meant to be parsed as code. It's just plain badness. What happens if someone adds a comment that happens to be parsed by some piece of software? the software then goes on and does some unexpected things. Comments, of course, can be machine readable such as those used to provide code documentation or CVS/SVN keywords, but these don't actually run anything or fork the code base. This is a 2005 version of mid 90's browser sniffing - forking the codebase to provide slighlty different content based on the client in use. Better to get the browsers actually rendering things to the published spec (hard, yes, but a better outcome). James On 9/30/05, Thierry Koblentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Drake, Ted C. wrote:> I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into> using the conditional comments. I'm saying this as someone that is> trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older > conversions.I rely heavily on Conditional Comments.IMO, the easiest way to deal with browser bugs is to feed them not withspecific rules, but with specific styles sheets.This is how I build/split my sheets: - I use @import and design for Firefox- I use MS Conditional Comments to include fixes for the different IE/Winversions (above v4).- I use @import "cssFile.css" to take care of IE5 Mac.- If I decide to support NN4, then I use JS to write a link to a styles sheet (CSS doesn't work without JS in NN4)For me the main advantage of these branching techniques is that I do nottake the risk of breaking one browser while trying to fix another. Also,because it eliminates the need for CSS hacks, my sheets are free of cryptic rules.Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Drake, Ted C. wrote: > I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into > using the conditional comments. I'm saying this as someone that is > trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older > conversions. I rely heavily on Conditional Comments. IMO, the easiest way to deal with browser bugs is to feed them not with specific rules, but with specific styles sheets. This is how I build/split my sheets: - I use @import and design for Firefox - I use MS Conditional Comments to include fixes for the different IE/Win versions (above v4). - I use @import "cssFile.css" to take care of IE5 Mac. - If I decide to support NN4, then I use JS to write a link to a styles sheet (CSS doesn't work without JS in NN4) For me the main advantage of these branching techniques is that I do not take the risk of breaking one browser while trying to fix another. Also, because it eliminates the need for CSS hacks, my sheets are free of cryptic rules. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
On Sep 29, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Anders Nawroth wrote: Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: ignore this statement. Conditional comments are Windows-only, unfortunately. Conditional comments are valid comments. I think hacks are more treacherous than structuring your comments to activate an IE-only property in a way that is deliberate on the part of the browser developer (and therefore supported, and therefore future-secure if not future-proof). But it does mean that a) you need to code first for standards, and send IE a corrective stylesheet, and b) you need to markup the content to support it. The only unavoidable downside I see is that it encourages bad browser sniffing behavior. I think the multitude of hacks out there encourage worse behavior. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Hi Anders That's the beauty of them. We're sending a special style sheet to IE and the rest are ignoring it. And we can define which version of IE uses the style sheet. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders Nawroth Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:52 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks Drake, Ted C. skrev: > I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into > using the conditional comments. I'm saying this as someone that is > trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older conversions. > > Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this > additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: > ignore this statement. > Conditional comments are Windows-only, unfortunately. Otherwise I share Ted's view on this topic. /AndersN ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Drake, Ted C. skrev: I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into using the conditional comments. I’m saying this as someone that is trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older conversions. Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: ignore this statement. Conditional comments are Windows-only, unfortunately. Otherwise I share Ted's view on this topic. /AndersN ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
Irina wrote: I've found this to be an interesting idea and wondering what other members think about it: "When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks": http://spaces.msn.com/members/siteexperts/Blog/cns! 1pNcL8JwTfkkjv4gg6LkVCpw!1805.entry The idea is not new, the logic has a lot of merit (IMO), but is not commonly used, and I wouldn't recommend it. Actually this fellow doesn't do it justice: "class" is not a valid attribute of the html tag, for one, and by assigning classes based entirely on the user agent he's encouraging practices that have been debunked for some time, especially in Javascript circles. Browser sniffing is just a backwards-thinking method, compared to capability testing, which some hacks attempt to do. His technique might be better dealt with if he assigned classes like this: ...and so forth. Of course, to do this with either server or client- side scripting still means browser sniffing, so you remain in an awkward situation. On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Drake, Ted C. wrote: I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into using the conditional comments. I’m saying this as someone that is trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older conversions. Agreed. The major stylesheet should be standard-compliant only and hack free. Then use a conditional comment to fix up the outliers. Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: ignore this statement. IE 5 Mac does not respond to conditional comments. However, since it is dead, its response to the Mac IE comment filters will not change and such hacks are safe. I’m dreading the idea of inserting conditional comments into the head sections of html pages. I’d like to insert it into the main.css file that imports more sophisticated styles. I have been overwhelmed lately and haven’t been able to test any answers to this. Does anyone have a suggestion? If you don't mind proprietary styles in your CSS, I was working on a conditional comment-like import statement that goes in the stylesheet. It worked, but Win XP SP2 allows scripting to be deactivated in the CSS as well as the regular page script, which would deactivate this technique. So I abandoned it. If anyone is interested, I suppose it still has a place in project where scripting is a requirement. Let me know if you use it. http://www.bivia.com/sandbox/css_cc_4ie/conditional_comment_test.html -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
On 9/29/05, Irina Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've found this to be an interesting idea and wondering what other members > think about it: > > "When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks": > http://spaces.msn.com/members/siteexperts/Blog/cns!1pNcL8JwTfkkjv4gg6LkVCpw!1805.entry#comment Applying the class attribute to the HTML element is invalid, and a browser could ignore it completely, provided you have some real bad luck. I wouldn't recommend doing this. N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i�� n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��
RE: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks
I think the future of CSS is not in hacks but looking seriously into using the conditional comments. I’m saying this as someone that is trying to figure out the best approach for retrofitting older conversions. Conditional comments are IE statements that say if ie6 use this additional CSS file, if IE5Mac, use this style sheet, if neither: ignore this statement. IE7 is going to throw a curveball worthy of a World Series ring. While it is easy and more convenient to throw a * html statement into a CSS, we need to start seriously looking at separating our hacks into different style sheets and intelligently using filters and conditional comments to refer to them. I think the approach this person is suggesting is very 2005, we need to look at 2006 answers. I’m dreading the idea of inserting conditional comments into the head sections of html pages. I’d like to insert it into the main.css file that imports more sophisticated styles. I have been overwhelmed lately and haven’t been able to test any answers to this. Does anyone have a suggestion? Imagine teasing someone that their CSS is “So 2005!” Did I just coin a term? Has Joe Clark already coined this one? Ted www.tdrake.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Irina Ahrens Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:17 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks Hi, I've found this to be an interesting idea and wondering what other members think about it: "When bugs become patterns - A look at CSS Hacks": http://spaces.msn.com/members/siteexperts/Blog/cns!1pNcL8JwTfkkjv4gg6LkVCpw!1805.entry#comment Cheers, Irina.
