|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 09/13/06 17:20
matt@mailinator.com wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> It's a CSS keyword, not a class.
>
> my terminology may not be exactly correct, but my point gets across. i
> have far too many technologies & languages under my belt to worry about
> appeasing random HTML slingers on usenet.
I thought it might be helpful to clarify something that maybe you
weren't aware of. I usually assume people want to understand, and want
others to understand, what they are talking about instead of using words
randomly and hoping the meaning gets sorted out on the other end. You
might think you're getting your point across, but I've had far too many
crossed wires occur because people meant one thing and said another. I'm
perplexed that some people think using the wrong term for something is a
badge of honor.
>> It must be, since the place where you just read about it is the official
>> definition of valid CSS syntax.
>
> not necessarily, which is why i asked. ive read far too much
> documentation and not known the assumed particulars in order to get
> some things work. not talking css here, but programming syntax in
> general.
Not necessarily what? The page in question is from the official CSS
specification. Whatever is there, is what the syntax is. If it isn't,
where do you think the correct syntax comes from?
> but, let me ask -- whats the point of being a dick? if you dont want to
> help me, then dont. let someone else...
You asked a question. I gave you the answer. In addition, I pointed out
that it's the answer *by definition*, which doesn't seem so terrible to
me, but in response you call me a dick and then pretend that I didn't
answer your question. Great. Have fun. <plonk>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|