On 10/13/05, Peter Firminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew > exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems.
A hack is a hack is a hack. Calling a hack a "conditional comment" doesn't magically make it something else. And conditional comments don't have any more forward compatibility than any other hack; if I use, say, "if IE gte 6" to get the supposed "forward compatibility" of conditional comments, and IE7 introduces bugs that aren't in IE6, then I'm traveling up the waterway without a paddling implement. My only option, then, is apparently to code a separate ruleset for each and every version of IE (and possibly each Windows Service Pack, depending on how MS decides to go with bug fixes) and use conditional comments keyed to those specific versions. The nightmare of maintainability thus created will make the dark ages of separate Netscape and IE code look like a walk in the park by comparison. So. How, exactly, is this a step forward again? > Sorry for the smug "told you so", but many people including myself have made > this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. So long as there are bugs in any browser which require hacks in order to get certain parts of CSS or any other standard to work in that browser, forward compatibility will be a serious problem. All the smugness and "I told you so" comments in the world won't make it otherwise. -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
