I think one of the great things about the CSS specifications is that they
specify how to handle errors, when rules should be ignored, etc. As long as
your hacks follow these rules and a perfectly compliant browser would read
it all correctly and ignore any fixes, that's fine. Conditional comments are
better, though, as its quite obvious that a compliant browser should ignore
them. (Don't get me wrong, I like conditional comments) Forget validation if
a fully compliant parser would parse them properly.

PS: Tantek has a great article on this at http://tantek.com/log/2005/11.html

Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development

On 8/22/07, Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is probably one of those questions that divides the audience (no,
> it doesn't involve brussel sprouts), but here goes:
> As exponents of web standards, we all know that one of the bedrock
> basics is that our code should validate -- both (x)html and css.
> But we also know that IE(win) is something of a recalcitrant beast and
> must occasionally be spanked into order with some hacks and/or
> conditionally commented stylesheets. And sometimes the workarounds
> required are non-valid CSS.
> So, is it considered 'okay', in a web standards sense, to have a non-
> valid "bug-fixes" stylesheet working alongside your perfect, pristine,
> uiber-valid main stylesheet?
> To give an example, if I were to have an IE-specific stylesheet with a
> lot of stuff like filter: alpha(opacity=50) in it -- which, a quick
> Google check informs me, does not validate -- would that be seen as a
> breach of web standards?
> Perhaps this whole issue is me getting too focused on the nitty gritty,
> but I'm in the process of moving from 'old-school' to web standards and
> am trying very hard to get it 'right'. This is just one of the goal
> posts that I'd like to clearly identify.
> Thanks.
> --
> Rick Lecoat

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to