Ben Rogers wrote: >> Quirks mode also prevents developers from utilizing the standards >> advances and CSS support in IE 6.
> It might be a little limiting, but backwards compatibility always is. In this case, through the use of either hacks or conditional comments, it doesn't have to be as limiting. Your argument supports simplifying backwards compatibility, not simply supporting it. Conditional comments alone, provides full support for backwards compatibility in IE to the point that quirks mode does. Conversely, hacks are just another means to keep things simple without loosing the advances made in IE 6. They may break in the future, but that heavily depends on the hack. >> Mozilla and Firefox, which don't suffer from many of these problems. > Actually, they do suffer from the same problems. In fact, Mozilla's got it > even worse since it has to support Netscape Navigator 4 behaviors in quirks > mode. That's why Mozilla (and Firefox by extension) *do* support doctype > switching. Issues in NN 4.0 are easily handled without forcing a modern browser to perform as an outdated, less than entirely functional (broken?) implementation. Depending on your needs, you could simply serve NN 4 an unstyled document. Alternatively, you can use the @import method to hide CSS as necessary. In either case you are getting the most out of modern browsers, while still serving a usable document to older browsers. If you need full blown support for NN 4, then you should base all of your CSS and markup on that browser's capability. > By invoking quirks mode, you have to do very little to work around box model > issues. By "very little" I mean that, on the typical site, I have to > override between 3 and 4 classes defined in the standard style sheet. I use > conditional comments to do this. I certainly don't need to implement any of > the hacks that you described. > > You can see an example of this here: > > http://www.nelivery.org/ By invoking quirks mode you have to do the exact same things you would for IE 5.x. If you avoid the problem altogether, as you have in the example you provided, there's no need for a hack or any other work around. When you can't avoid the broken box model or choose to use more semantic markup within your document, IE 6 in quirks mode will break the box model just like IE 5 does. I don't see how this solves anything other than allowing you to treat all versions of IE 5+ the same in your stylesheets. On a typical site I may only use a hack or a conditional 3 or 4 times... the true number depends on the design and how I approach it. Often times I can avoid it completely, but when it pops up, I simply fix it. > I agree. However, my point is that I've never had to use any of those hacks. > Using a combination of quirks modes and the conditional comment behavior, > you can avoid the necessity for those hacks. This results in less code. The > code that you end up with is also easier to read code because it's not > obfuscated with the hacks. You can do the exact same thing without forcing IE into quirks mode... That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Rather than create a conditional for IE 5+ you create one specifically for IE 5.x, while IE 6 continues to use the correct width settings in your master stylesheet. The only benefit forcing quirks mode offers is that you can address any IE 5+ shortcoming in a single "all-ie" stylesheet. > You're exploiting bugs and undocumented behaviors. In my book, this means > that you can't rely on them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ever use them. > However, it does mean they should be used as a last resort. Fortunately, I > have never had to use them. Of course you don't ever have to use a hack. You can avoid it in a number of ways--in the markup, by using conditionals comments, or by avoiding the use of margin, padding, and border combinations. > Quirks mode in Internet Explorer, Mozilla and Oprah is a feature. You are > not "breaking" the browser by using this feature. It exists for this very > reason. Ok, then you are intentionally making the browser behave incorrectly and ignoring the CSS 2 spec. >>You call it backwards >>compatibility and I'll call it backwards thinking. > > > Please avoid personal attacks. There's really no call for that. That wasn't a personal attack. Had I called you a elitist asshat who thinks backasswards, that would have been a personal attack. I was attacking on your view, not you. My apologies, if you were offended. It wasn't my intent to pick a fight, I was just offering an alternative solution to quirks mode. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187457 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
