Posted by kchayka on 04/12/06 02:03

John Bokma wrote:
> kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:
>
>> As someone else pointed out, conditional comments are indeed a hack,
>
> No: a hack is relying on a flaw or side effect in a parser that might be
> not present in a future version.

I don't see it that way. To me, hacks are anything extra to accommodate
browser bugs or other deficiencies. Some hacks do rely on parsing
errors, but not all. IE's zoom property, for example, is such a hack.
Sometimes I want a hack to work around moz's poor <col> styling support.

>> BTW, since IE7 does sooooooo much better at CSS than IE6 does, I have
>> found the *html hack to be most excellent. IE7 ignores it, and applies
>> the standard CSS rules other browsers get. Beautiful. :)
>
> With a conditional comment you knew beforehand how to make that some CSS
> is *not* going to be processed by IE7. With the *html *hack* you had to
> wait for a beta to test it.

No, I had to wait for the beta in either case. What MS says IE7 will or
won't do is irrelevant. It needed testing with my particular CSS to
determine if any work-arounds were required to begin with. That first
public beta was a mess. If MS hadn't cleaned it up... well, I'm just
glad I don't have to worry about it much any more.

The *html hack has worked marvelously for applying work-arounds to
IE5-6, and leaving IE7 alone. That is exactly what I want now. Why would
I want to pollute the html with conditional comments, when I'd still
have to have polluted CSS for other IE kludges, or hacks for other
browsers? Sounds like more work to me.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Back to original message]