Rich Mellor wrote: > ... > Agreed, but not many people are coming forward to say which they would > rather use !! > > I thought quite a few people had come forward and most seemed to say which they would rather use. I'd rather use the Wikipedia one (as I've said before, for all the reasons mentioned before).
Having finally figured out where this new Wiki is, via Google, and guesswork, I can now add a few more reasons, all negative. Wikipedia does not use a background. The new one does. Wikipedia is not very pretty. The new one is. Wikipedia I can read - it's in reasonable sized text, generally black on white. I have trouble reading small font, pastel on pastel. Wikipedia doesn't mention it, but passes W3C tests. the new one says it passes them and doesn't. Wikipedia mentions me. The new one doesn't. :) -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
