Re: [MACCAWS] Webmonkey article: Web Standards for Hard Times

> On 2002-08-07 11:58 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > He has a very good point here. What I'm asking is: Should we be
> > pushing workarounds/hacks to work WITH the older browsers, or settle
> > with (possibly) less visually appealing & precise layouts which ARE
> > cleanly laid out but still remain W3C compliant.

We need to clarify what we're talking about when we refer to 'hacks'. I
can't think of a single commonly-discussed hack that isn't valid CSS,
and if it's valid, it meets the standard.

I think we'd be foolish to push anything other than that at this point.
Once the case for standards has been made, then perhaps we should turn
our attention toward the spirit, as well as the letter of the
standard(s), but for now, let's stay focused.


On 2002-08-07 11:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

>    There are better, more elegant alternatives for just about every
>    hack I've seen, for example:
> 
>         * The NS4 hack /*/*/ .notForNS4 { ... } /* */ can be replaced
>           with *.notForNS4 { ... } or * span { ... }, @import, @media
>           { }, media="all", importing via script, conditional
>           comments, etc.

But, none of these examples is any more valid than the other, so what
makes them inherently better than /*/*/?

FWIW, Caio's /*/*/ hack is the only one of the bunch that can be used to
isolate declarations within a ruleset:

li{
    color:#000;
    background:#fff;
    /*/*/
      list-style-type:none;
    /* */
    padding:.25em;
    }

>         * The IE5 box-model bug can be mostly corrected by doing:
> 
>             #box { width: 500px; }
>             #box { padding: 10px; }
>             <div id="box"><div class="pad">Blah</div></div>
> 
>           Instead of the extremely yucky:
> 
>             #box {
>                width: 500px;
>                padding: 10px;
>                voice-family: "\"}\"";
>                voice-family: inherit;
>                width: 480px;
>             }

IMO, the former is much yuckier. I'd much rather have ruleset containing
a 'hack' than [potentially] dozens of redundantly-nested elements within
the document itself.

--
kevin c smith
http://centricle.com