Posted by Greg N. on 05/08/06 12:09

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>> An example of solid content is http://wikipedia.org
>
> Ehem, Wikipedia is by definition not solid. It is by definition a site
> that can be edited at any moment by anyone.

....

> There are lots of examples of sites of solid content, so it
> was unfortunate that you picked up a wrong one.

I think your interpretation of the word "solid" is wrong. The word
hardly means anything like "static" in any context. In the English
language, the adjective "solid" can also mean "well built, of good
quality" as opposed to "hollow, flimsy".

Thanks for the dictionary link. That's a good (solid) one, too. I
suggest you look up the word "solid":

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/solid

--
Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

[Back to original message]