We have the same thing in Javascript, we call it 'hacks.js'. That's the place you go when things are broken and you're not yet ready to pay down tech debt.
One key difference here for me is that the word "hacks" might imply that the addition of hacks to that file are acceptable; where as the word "shame" implies that the hacks are less than acceptable and should be used as a last resort.
I would normally agree with you, but the term "hack" in css already has a relatively well defined meaning as "goofy piece of CSS to work around a browser bug"[1]. While I do think it's appropriate to isolate such things so you can remove them when you stop supporting a browser, I don't think they'd belong in a shame.css file. Then again, maybe that's just getting too fetishistic about organizing code.
Comments
We have the same thing in Javascript, we call it 'hacks.js'. That's the place you go when things are broken and you're not yet ready to pay down tech debt.
Hacks.css sounds nicer than shame.
One key difference here for me is that the word "hacks" might imply that the addition of hacks to that file are acceptable; where as the word "shame" implies that the hacks are less than acceptable and should be used as a last resort.
I'd go with dirtyha.css
I would normally agree with you, but the term "hack" in css already has a relatively well defined meaning as "goofy piece of CSS to work around a browser bug"[1]. While I do think it's appropriate to isolate such things so you can remove them when you stop supporting a browser, I don't think they'd belong in a shame.css file. Then again, maybe that's just getting too fetishistic about organizing code.
[1] http://www.quirksmode.org/css/csshacks.html