Bob Schwartz wrote:
In light of that bit of news, would <td> </td> still be
considered the wrong answer?
<pony warning>
Of course!
You should _always_ follow standard, even when it doesn't work...
...but, if reality kicks in, then you _can_ use <td><!--[if
IE]> <![endif]--></td> and apply the empty-cells property for
compliant browsers, and maybe get away with it ;-)
</pony warning>
The answer is simple: use standards as far as they get you, and then add
whatever is necessary to make it work. I don't know if there is any
working alternatives to <td> </td> for IE/win, so I would simply
use it until someone comes up with a better - and working - solution.
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
