Content deleted Content added
Voidvector (talk | contribs) |
→Support for Internet Explorer's box model: Some tidy up - more to do |
||
Line 368:
::::: So we both agree that there was a pre-W3C box model, correct? If so, instead of describing the issue as "standard vs legacy" which is what it is, why are you insisting on having the article centered around IE/Microsoft?
::::: The non-box CSS is really of no interest to this conversation, i am not sure why you brought it up, but I would say Netscape 4 was worse in terms of CSS support. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]])
Having given you a couple of weeks to do what you like to this article, I have just tightened up the [[WP:LEAD]]. It is important to stick to the topic of the article at the very start and not begin the article with an argument disputing its very name, I feel. Having begun this discussion section asking the question as to whether or not a particular section was already too long, I am disappointed to see that it has been lengthened with a long preceding paragraph summarising what appear to be the opinions of a series of bloggers.
I don't have to time at the moment to read and appraise each of those references, but if they turn out to be blogs as I suspect, then I'm afraid they'll have to go. As I'm sure you know, WP does not generally regard personal blogs as [[WP:RELIABLE]] sources. If I get a chance, I'd like to go though and upgrade the whole article to the current recommended format for [[WP:CITE]] citations too - you know, using the format <nowiki><ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | author=... etc}}</ref></nowiki> rather than the current mish-mash. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
| |||