> > From: david > > CSS is a powerful thing, but it is intended to work with > > valid HTML (as the W3C CSS validator reports). Clean, > > basic HTML avoids problems. And conditional comments > > don't interfere with that at all.
> From: Chris Ovenden > I think it's disingenuous to call conditional comments > "clean, basic HTML". We all want to do beautiful, > cross-platform, futureproof page layouts using semantic, > accessible markup; unfortunately user agents are currently > not quite up to the job (and, much as I love it, I have to > include Firefox in this). So we hack; or, less pejoratively, we > work around known issues with the user agents we're given > - counting our blessings that we live in 2007 and not 1997. > Whether we hack the CSS, the HTML or a bit of both is a > matter of personal choice (personally I'm with Barney on > this) - but call it what it is and don't try to pretend to purity. Very insightful! At first I was taken aback by the word "disingenuous", until I realized you probably didn't mean its usual connotation of cynical, calculating, and insincere. :-) It's not surprising that I'd be confused by a word where Dictionary.com complains: "The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning..." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disingenuous -Mike (not the language police, just want to make sure no one takes offense at something you didn't intend) ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
