Bob Schwartz wrote:
In light of that bit of news, would <td> </td> still be considered the wrong answer?
<pony warning> Of course! You should _always_ follow standard, even when it doesn't work... ...but, if reality kicks in, then you _can_ use <td><!--[if IE]> <![endif]--></td> and apply the empty-cells property for compliant browsers, and maybe get away with it ;-) </pony warning> The answer is simple: use standards as far as they get you, and then add whatever is necessary to make it work. I don't know if there is any working alternatives to <td> </td> for IE/win, so I would simply use it until someone comes up with a better - and working - solution. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************