Chris Ovenden wrote: > I am not particularly enamoured of the IE7-only hacks that are > circulating, like this: > http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/xxx/ > > while this one relies on deprecated XHTML: > http://www.ibloomstudios.com/article7/
Those are hideous hideous hacks - they rely on partial CSS3 support (in incredibly convoluted ways), which is a completely entropic thing and depends on every affected browser's evolution. Clever fun for hobby hackers, but something even I would never consider as having practical applications. The star and comma hack have nothing to do with css functional support, and are respectively rooted in a) a different DOM and b) a different way of parsing syntax. These things are far more solid, and are unlikely to be changed in any hurry. > Besides that, there is something very ugly about conditional comments; > while I find some CSS hacks/filters aesthetically acceptable. I agree. There is something ever so sneaky about comments, and the supposed cleanliness of conditional comments + no hacks is one felt mostly by machines who are unaware of the tricks being played on them. The validator gives me warnings, but that's only because I'm being honest with it. Besides, if the validator only understood what was going on in browserland, I wouldn't be on the top of it's naughty list. I'd say "They started it, miss". There is something a bit weird about people who proudly quote the automated validation process, fully aware there are things they are hiding from it. It's like a Microsoft Q&A session or something. Regards, Barney ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
