The term "hack" implies that a legitimate solution to the problem exists. Yet, in order to save time, or perhaps due to lack of knowledge, a sloppy fix is applied to just get the job done. "Let's hack at it, 'till it works". But is this the case in terms of CSS hacks? Sure, we call them "hacks", when in reality they're really patches. Patches that fix known, documented problems in certain browsers.

I know it's really just a term, but the problem is this: by using "hack" to describe often necessary code, a negative connotation can be attached, even if what we're really doing is compensating for a browser's shortcomings. When you hear someone say: "I avoid all hacks", you've witnessed this negative connotation. Heck, we'd all love to avoid hacks -- but we're also realistic, living in the real world, and designing in 2005.

Now think about the term "patch". It brings to mind, mending something that's broken. It's rip or tear is clearly visible -- we know it's broken, and we know what we need to do to make it look better. We're not cutting corners, we're applying a fix.

Perhaps from now on, I'll refer to fixes for gems like the double float margin bug, or the three-pixel text jog as, well... patches.