W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > December 2006

Fwd: arguments and embedding

From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:05:58 +0100
Message-Id: <AA051568-A969-4540-AA5C-0A98DF446F4B@empyree.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Hello,

(I think cross-posting is legal in that case. Please tell me if it is  
not)

This is a copy of a reply regarding the “CSS big picture”. The  
original topic was the multiplicity of proposals and the reason of  
their frequent refusals.

Début du message réexpédié :

> Réenvoyé-De : www-style@w3.org
> De : David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
> Date : 3 décembre 2006 10:31:08 HNEC
> À : David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
> Cc : www-style@w3.org
> Objet : Rép : arguments and embedding
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
>
>
>
> Le 2 déc. 06 à 13:34, David Woolley a écrit :
>
>>
>>> Does this never lead the rejectors to ask themselves /why/
>>> these "variations" are so frequently proposed ?  Could it
>>
>> I think the main reason is that people don't look at the big
>> picture when proposing them.
>
> Is there somewhere on the W3C some kind of paper about this? If  
> such a "big-picture" document exists, along with a compundium of  
> most frequent mistakes, I dare to think it would help.
>
>
> -- 
> </david_latapie>
> http://blog.empyree.org/   U+0F00
>
>
>

-- 
</david_latapie>
http://blog.empyree.org/   U+0F00
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2006 10:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:37 UTC