I don't quite get why this thread degenerated on this. This is just
syntax, there are alternatives, and it's already a standard (i.e. it
won't change), so what's the point?
If you ask me, I don't know the reasoning behind this order, they
could as well use the common (x, y) way, but this may just be the same
case as with UTC (ever looked what it stands for? [1]).
Maybe we should stop this thread, it goes nowhere ---and sorry for
contributing myself.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> According to the specifications, giving three values for margin:
>>> is perfectly legal and valid.
>>>
>>> The sequence of messages here illustrate pretty well, that it's a
>>> poor idea!
>>>
>> How so?
>>
>> It is a recognised and neat way writing margin and padding rules.
>>
>> If it is recommended by the standards folks (link earlier on) who are we to
>> argue?
>>
>>
>
>
>> Ian
>>
>
> Neat? OK - if you think so. It saves about 5 characters and confuses everyone
> in town, often including those who typed it originally.
>
> It's not recommended - it is merely recognised or accepted.
>
> It is not necessary to make use of each and every poor idea.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
