> > Actually, it is the opposite, there is no reason to leave them in. > > If you know that some rules will serve no purpose, then why would you > want > > to keep them in? > > http://carsonified.com/blog/design/setting-rather-than-resetting- > default-sty > > ling/ > > > >> The problem is that I assumed (again) that the creators of the > >> universal ie6 stylesheet had also tested it for "IE lt 6" and any > >> changes I made would NOT be tested. > > > > I don't think the author tested these rules in IE lte 6, because as > far as I > > know these rules are *ignored* by IE. > > Also you'd be removing declarations or rules, not adding anything, so > I'd > > say the "testing" part is irrelevant. > > > > Thierry, > > Your remarks are interesting but they leave me a bit confused. For me, > there are three possible ways of addressing IE less than 6 (for which I > have no test machine) :
Hi Ellen, As Philippe explained, the rules you'd remove are rules that serve no purpose anyway. For example, IE does not style "ABBR" unless you create a fictitious element via JS (something I doubt you'd bother to do for IE lt 6). And I agree with Philippe about "CODE", the browser would apply that rule, but does that styling make sense to you? -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
