Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:46:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1969 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve:
> Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
>
> Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate
> it, let us know what you think.
[...]
It is definitely a useable option. How will the
specification document look then? If it is easier to read
that way, then you have one proponent for that solution.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) There are two possibilities for updating the document with this approach: 1. Just change the syntax expressions, and modify any syntax-specific references. This would be the low-impact approach, with only cosmetic changes. 2. Rework the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Still discussing (URL). Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate it, let us know what you think. Have a single 0 BFC statement, which allows specifications of various options/settings. Something like: 0 BFC ( CERTIFY | NOCERTIFY | (...) (25 years ago, 17-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
