You can also intercept the user-agent of the visitor to propose different layouts.
That's one of the things Zeldman argues against! Code forking for different browsers is so last century. It is possible to have a one-size-fits all approach.
But you can apply CSS for the browsers that can handle it, while hiding it from the crap that can't, like NS4, using @import. You can then feed basic styles that NS4 *can* handle in a linked stylesheet.
It's called Progressive Enhancement. No-one is locked out. Everyone gets the content. Better browsers get more bells and whistles. Older ones get either vanilla or basically-styled HTML.
It's a win-win situation, unless you're the kind of developer/designer for whom the web *must* look exactly the same on every damn browser/OS combo. If so, invite all your users round to your house to use your computer. It's the only way to guarantee that they're all seeing it the same.
But seriously, at least read the book before coming out with all these...opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one of the things Zeldman argues against! Code forking for different browsers is so last century. It is possible to have a one-size-fits all approach.
Which is why you layer the CSS: Advanced stuff for good browsers (@import), basic stuff for crap ones (linked).
But you can apply CSS for the browsers that can handle it, while hiding it from the crap that can't, like NS4, using @import. You can then feed basic styles that NS4 *can* handle in a linked stylesheet.
It's called Progressive Enhancement. No-one is locked out. Everyone gets the content. Better browsers get more bells and whistles. Older ones get either vanilla or basically-styled HTML.
It's a win-win situation, unless you're the kind of developer/designer for whom the web *must* look exactly the same on every damn browser/OS combo. If so, invite all your users round to your house to use your computer. It's the only way to guarantee that they're all seeing it the same.
But seriously, at least read the book before coming out with all these...opinions.