[Wsuug] Conditional CSS revisited

[Reese]

Zach Young wrote:
> +1000
> 
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Andrew Jaswa <ajaswa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of this concept. Though I've never used this service, I
>> don't think I ever would. The idea encourages you to write browser
>> specific CSS. Which then creates a maintenance nightmare. I would
>> encourage good solid markup and CSS that is cross browser compatible
>> and only use targeted CSS when you absolutely have to.
>>
>> It just seems like a bad idea and promotes bad practices.

-1000, sorry Zack. No one suggested that their service be used, just
that their method of implementation be evaluated.

Andrew, it does not encourage browser-specific CSS any more than it
discourages solid markup in the first place; this particular technique
is simply a different way to accommodate certain flawed, dead (no
longer under development) browsers that still enjoy popular usage
*when nothing else works*. We could similarly argue whether the
500 ml beaker with 250 ml of h2o is half-full or half-empty, when
the objective truth is that the beaker is twice as large as it needs
to be and all other statements are flawed by subjectivity.

Whether "it" is a bad idea and/or promotes bad practices would depend
on when such browser-specific CSS was actually implemented. I agree
that it should not be a first resort, perhaps not even a second or
a third resort. But when a design absolutely requires that one Web
browser (IE6 probably) be fed different information than all others,
because of known flaws in the rendering engine of that one browser,
then what? This seems like a best of breed solution, whether this
particular breed is allowed to compete in the dog & pony show or not.

Reese