Re: Targeting CSS3 only (evil?), either with pseudoclass or an extra syntax for properties.

> The only way for web designers to stay sane, is to stick to standards.

I stick to valid HTML and CSS, but I still like conditional comments.


> Every layout engine will have bugs. If you're looking for
> pixel-perfection, HTML is the wrong medium. A strong core of standards
> gives wiley web designers the tools they need.

I don't know if you'd call my needs pixel-perfection, but I could only get 
what I want with conditional comments or scripting. If conditional comments 
create pixel-perfection, all the better.


> And if you want to see a good example of innovative web browser design
> that doesn't flaunt web standards, check out Omniweb[1]. It's features are
> impressive and original.
>
> [1] http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/

That webpage has invalid HTML. If all that was "wrong" with it were 
conditional comments, it would validate. It makes me wonder how much the 
authors of Omniweb really care about standards.

Omniweb might be innovative, but it would be better if it supported 
conditional comments.

If everyone had my standards for creating webpages (proper use of tables, 
browser compatibility, and valid HTML and CSS), there would be more demand 
for conditional comments. I don't need them to take the place of the 
proposed CSS property sniffers. I just need them for what I'm using them for 
now, for example to fix the blink in IE before the background position 
changes, which isn't a bug and wouldn't be caught by a property sniffer. 
Others have brought up problems with the proposed property sniffers, and 
conditional comments could help there too.


David Woolley wrote:
> I think the particular point here was that the HTML should reflect the
> meaning of the document, not its appearence, so should not change.

I prefer what ever works best, and conditional comments work best, at least 
for me. I wouldn't mind having conditional comments for CSS only. CSS is the 
only thing I'd need them for if either Firefox or Opera had them.

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 22:51:33 UTC