> It must've come from that article, it looks vaguely familiar. > Personally I saw it as a furtherance to the hasJS technique. > My perspective was to remove separate style sheets, and obscure hacks, purely > to simplify editing exactly as Paul Irish's > article states. > Without using * html and *+html which obfuscates the meaning in the style > sheet. > > Since querying here I've had difficulty validating code with a class on the > html element. > Am I incorrect in the belief that it should actually be valid?
It amazes me to see how far people are willing to go to have their styles sheets validate. Using hacks like this one goes against the separation of the three layers. It is using markup for presentation, it is no better than using things like <p></p> or <br><br><br>. Plus, it messes up with the cascade as the rules are more specific. What's wrong with the *property and _property hack? These are extremely reliable, they do not increase specificity, they facilitate maintenance because the styling for IE versions is where one would expect it to be (in the same rule), and it does not create extra HTTP request (IE styles sheets)... As a side note, an ID on HTML passes validation and I believe using the HTML5 doctype allows to use CLASS on the HTML element. -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
