On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:26:14 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago,
when we settled on querySelector as the one that provoked least
objection.
...
But
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago,
when we settled on querySelector as the one that provoked least
objection.
...
But spending another few months arguing about it
On 2012-06-21 15:56, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago,
when we settled on querySelector as the one that provoked least
objection.
...
But
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:56:45 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago,
when we settled on querySelector as the one
(12/06/21 23:28), Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:56:45 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The least-objectionable alternative is rarely the best alternative, and
trying to please everyone is a fool's errand.
