<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Class Hours!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.robinsblog.com/10172005/new-class-hours/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.robinsblog.com/10172005/new-class-hours/</link>
	<description>Resources for Web Development Students</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:51:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hucklesby</title>
		<link>http://www.robinsblog.com/10172005/new-class-hours/comment-page-1/#comment-600</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hucklesby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robinsblog.com/?p=231#comment-600</guid>
		<description>Re: &lt;b&gt;Future-proof your CSS with Conditional Comments&lt;/b&gt;

Bruce rather undermines his arguments for using so-called &quot;Conditional Comments&quot; by giving out the venerable but outdated &quot;Tantek voice-family hack&quot;. His argument about an extra style sheet requiring an extra HTTP request really does not hold much water. One extra &quot;hit&quot; to the server is pretty insignificant, and once the style sheet is in the browser&#039;s memory (&quot;cache&quot;) no more requests are needed.

See the Wiki at &lt;a href=&quot;http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack&quot; title=&quot;Box Model Hack.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CSS-DISCUSS&lt;/a&gt; for alternatives. (My favorite is &quot;box in a box&quot; which does not rely on browser bugs at all.)

Not mentioned in the article is the way &quot;Conditional Comments&quot; can be used to hide code from IE, as well as the other way &#039;round. See &lt;a href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Microsoft&#039;s explanation&lt;/a&gt;.

Cordially, David.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: <b>Future-proof your CSS with Conditional Comments</b></p>
<p>Bruce rather undermines his arguments for using so-called &#8220;Conditional Comments&#8221; by giving out the venerable but outdated &#8220;Tantek voice-family hack&#8221;. His argument about an extra style sheet requiring an extra HTTP request really does not hold much water. One extra &#8220;hit&#8221; to the server is pretty insignificant, and once the style sheet is in the browser&#8217;s memory (&#8220;cache&#8221;) no more requests are needed.</p>
<p>See the Wiki at <a href="http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack" title="Box Model Hack." rel="nofollow">CSS-DISCUSS</a> for alternatives. (My favorite is &#8220;box in a box&#8221; which does not rely on browser bugs at all.)</p>
<p>Not mentioned in the article is the way &#8220;Conditional Comments&#8221; can be used to hide code from IE, as well as the other way &#8217;round. See <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp" rel="nofollow">Microsoft&#8217;s explanation</a>.</p>
<p>Cordially, David.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

