>I personally can't stand it myself but in the absence of a better way I keep >using it. I'm not too keen on using a Javascript browser sniffer to detect >IE5Win and then load in a style sheet all of its own - after all, it's only >one browser that suffers from the box model issue (although Opera also >suffers from the parse bug hence the CSS2 clean-up after the voice-family >hack).
That's precisely why I dislike the hack. It seems odd that anyone should: 1. Set up the property wrongly, so that it will be right in the buggy browser. Anyone reading the CSS casually may imagine that it is the right value in the property. 2. Make the buggy browser fall over, so that you can set up the property correctly. The method for use the parsing bug in IE5 may not be known to anyone else who looks at the code. They might say 'What's all this voice stuff?' and take it out, so that every browser except the buggy one will render page wrongly. 3. Set it up for Opera, which also falls over on the parsing error. By now, the new coder may wonder what on earth is going on. It reminds me somewhat of that old 'toy' for swapping the connects of two memory locations by doing 3 exclusive ORs. It was better to define and use a new intermediate area. And we wonder why people call us 'geeks'. Yes, it's all very clever [and I do mean that in a derogatory sense], but is it good code? The fact that IE5 recognizes conditional comments and that it is the one with the bug encourages me to use one feature to resolve another. Regards, David ____ � The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM � ____ To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub ________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
