<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Setting Min and Max Widths in IE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/</link>
	<description>Change is the only constant...</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ainslie</title>
		<link>http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8269</link>
		<dc:creator>Ainslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8269</guid>
		<description>I do as a rule try and keep all my code fully valid. It's not such a big deal usually, as there are valid workarounds for browser quirks. This time I couldn't find anything else that fits.

I think I will use it and maybe put the code at the top of the style sheet and comment it so that it can be deleted if the user doesn't like it or if the time comes when IE accepts min-widtht and max-width. I don't think it is a big enough bit of code to warrant another style sheet as it will be simple enough to remove.

Then again as has happend in the past a better compliant way of doing this may turn up. Usually this is the result of some clever person giving me a good flaming for daring not to get it right!

One other option is to put this in the html and then use an IE conditional statement comment so that it validates, but this only hides it from the validator as it is still there, so it seems to me that I may as well say I have done this because...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do as a rule try and keep all my code fully valid. It&#8217;s not such a big deal usually, as there are valid workarounds for browser quirks. This time I couldn&#8217;t find anything else that fits.</p>
<p>I think I will use it and maybe put the code at the top of the style sheet and comment it so that it can be deleted if the user doesn&#8217;t like it or if the time comes when IE accepts min-widtht and max-width. I don&#8217;t think it is a big enough bit of code to warrant another style sheet as it will be simple enough to remove.</p>
<p>Then again as has happend in the past a better compliant way of doing this may turn up. Usually this is the result of some clever person giving me a good flaming for daring not to get it right!</p>
<p>One other option is to put this in the html and then use an IE conditional statement comment so that it validates, but this only hides it from the validator as it is still there, so it seems to me that I may as well say I have done this because&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seanrox</title>
		<link>http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8069</link>
		<dc:creator>seanrox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8069</guid>
		<description>Ainslie, I agree with you. Sometimes you need to find a happy middle ground between the user experience and code validity. 

I think since this is such a small thing, I would use the css hack to make it more enjoyable for the end user. 

The rest of your code is very clean and seems to be cross browser compliant.

The idea of having both style sheets in your distribution files is also good, just be sure to make a little note in a readme file for the person to understand what the difference is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ainslie, I agree with you. Sometimes you need to find a happy middle ground between the user experience and code validity. </p>
<p>I think since this is such a small thing, I would use the css hack to make it more enjoyable for the end user. </p>
<p>The rest of your code is very clean and seems to be cross browser compliant.</p>
<p>The idea of having both style sheets in your distribution files is also good, just be sure to make a little note in a readme file for the person to understand what the difference is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ainslie</title>
		<link>http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8035</link>
		<dc:creator>Ainslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8035</guid>
		<description>That's not a bad idea. I suppose the best of both worlds.

I've been giving this "user vs validity" thing quite a bit of though. Once the world has decent browsers it should not be a problem.

Like that is ever going to happen!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not a bad idea. I suppose the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been giving this &#8220;user vs validity&#8221; thing quite a bit of though. Once the world has decent browsers it should not be a problem.</p>
<p>Like that is ever going to happen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8034</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webgazette.co.uk/2006/06/27/setting-min-and-max-widths-in-ie/#comment-8034</guid>
		<description>I'd say go with it, but include a valid CSS stylesheet, so the people obsessed by validity can use that instead!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d say go with it, but include a valid CSS stylesheet, so the people obsessed by validity can use that instead!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.276 seconds -->
