comment on

I don't have much to offer, but since you asked, I'll say what little I have to say. My immediate reaction is two-fold: 1) "I'm supposed to have some clue what the point is based on what?!" 2) That patch at least looks fairly harmless.

But now that I write that I think the "harmless" assessment is nearly tied to the "pointless" assessment. If it isn't adding a completely new item to CSS then the patch might have some impact besides making way for some future idea. But I have little clue what the immediate impact would be or what future ideas are hoped for so I go back to not knowing what the point is.

Update: I looked for a reply (to the linked patch) or at least that was my intent so I'm disappointed in myself for not seeing the reply. It answered my questions.

- tye

In reply to Re: more css support, step 1 (point?) by tye
in thread more css support, step 1 by jdporter

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


Perl: the Markov chain saw
	PerlMonks