I didn’t get the original for this. Eric?
apr 25 2014 03:21 John Johnson j...@coffeeonmars.com:
certainly seems appropriate to me…I’d vote “yes” for the powers that be to
consider.
I’m for it as long as there is a clear connection to CSS, which there typically
is.
On Apr 25, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Philip Taylor p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Eric wrote:
I'll raise my hand and say I'm against it. Not because I have a problem with
CSS
pre-processors rather because this is a CSS list. Pre-processors are simply a
tool used to write CSS in a more
25 apr MiB digital.disc...@gmail.com:
I didn’t get the original for this. Eric?
Andrews original was found in the spam folder for unknown reasons.
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
At 06:53 AM 4/25/2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
Possible Holy War as well...
CSS pre-processors do not write optimized code by default, it is very
easy to write code that will result in bloat and reduced performance.
It didn't take much Googling to find this article:
apr 26 2014 00:36 Reese howel...@inkworkswell.com:
CSS pre-processors do not write optimized code by default, it is very
easy to write code that will result in bloat and reduced performance.
It didn't take much Googling to find this article:
