On 22/8/07 (12:12) Georg said: >It is considered "bad, but necessary and therefore acceptable" by most >web designers/developers.
That's what I thought, Georg, but it's good to hear it confirmed -- seeing as how we don't live in that 'ideal world' that I keep hearing so much about. >'Conditional comments' for IE versions provides us with a practical >separation-solution, but the hiding-effect (that the validator can't see >the separate and non-valid workaround) doesn't make the non-valid >workaround more valid. Thus, my personal preference is *not* to use >'conditional comments' unless there's no other way to achieve separation >and prevent other _browsers_ from being disturbed by the non-valid >workarounds. I see no point in "hiding my sins", although I daily hide >lots of IE garbage as a result of the separation-process itself. I fully agree that separating the non-valid 'fixes' stylesheet from the main one does not make it any more valid. However, I'm curious about why your personal preference is for NOT using Conditional Comments; you seem to equate them with trying to hide embarrassing non-valid code, and I'm sure that some designers might use them for that. I'm certainly not trying to hide anything by using CCs (to be honest, I have a hard enough time convincing clients that valid code is even a benefit to them, so they aren't going to care if my IE stylesheet doesn't validate if, indeed, they even understand the concept). I use them primarily because they segue nicely into my deep-seated anal retention (everything subdivided and in its own file). Best... -- Rick Lecoat ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
