Posts in the Standards Category

Andrei’s redesigning Design By Fire.  I hesitate to comment on a partially-finished design, since I never know if the things that annoy or delight me are going to go away in the next revision.  I will say that there seems to be an awful lot of whitespace in the masthead area.  I’m more interested in responding to the concluding sentences of the section titled “Floats suck”:

All that CSS goodness however, does not mean that I think the logic behind float makes any real design sense, especially to someone who has an extensive graphic design background like myself. The whole float layout approach smacks of using a CSS property for more heavy duty work than it was intended.

That is precisely the case.  float was never meant as a layout tool.  I summarized the history of floats in the article “Containing Floats“, but the short version is that floats are not supposed to be a design tool.  They’re simply meant to take an element, put it to one side, and let other content flow around it.  That’s all.

Floats have been bent to the purpose of large-scale layout for exactly one reason: clear. Because you can clear a footer below two floated columns, float layout came into being.  If there had ever been a way to “clear” elements below positioned elements, we’d never have bothered to use floats for layout.  We’d have used floats in layouts, but that’s not the same thing.

Shaun Inman’s solution to this problem is to use JavaScript to “clear” positioned below others.  For whatever reason, I tend to resist using scripting to solve layout problems, but in this case we really don’t have any other choice.  I’m planning to employ his strategy when I adjust meyerweb’s design, since it’s possible to use it in such a way that things won’t be any worse if JavaScript is disabled, but much better if it is.

So to me, floats sort of suck for design purposes.  They’re not bad, but not great.  If you use them for their original (albeit limited) purpose, though, they rock.

• Floats Don’t Suck If You Use Them Right was published on Saturday, July 17th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Standards category.
• There have been twenty-four replies.

To paraphrase Tim Bray, I had thought I’d said enough about the Dashboard and its markup, but when Dave Hyatt says he’s interested in hearing your thoughts, out loud you think.  Dave’s interest in my thoughts was sparked by Ian Hickson‘s post about extending HTML, where he raised objections to all the technical proposals made thus far and advocated working with the WHAT WG before adding anything new.  So let me first establish my baseline for my thinking on the subject, both past and present:

Dashboard will happen, and will be present in Tiger, and will have at least the features described thus far.  All that remains is to advocate for interoperability with standards.

That isn’t some sort of admission of defeat: I’m really looking forward to the Dashboard.  I think it’s a great thing.  I think it shows how, with just a little bit of extension, the standards we already know can be used in compelling and useful ways, and for that matter how standards can yield powerful applications on their own.  The baseline assumption I make above is a way of establishing the parameters for my discussions of the subject.  It helps keep me focused.

In order to keep things clean, I proposed an approach centering around a new DOCTYPE, and Tim Bray proposed another revolving around namespacing.  Ian pointed out the technical flaws in all of our suggestions.  Strictly speaking, Ian’s right: there are technical problems with each of the proposed solutions.  In the world of pragmatic standards, though, what’s important is making things work as necessary to get the job done.  Thus my approach.  You haven’t heard me complain about the addition of contenteditable to the Web Core’s DOM, for example.  Why would I?  Dave’s right to add it.

It seems that both Tim and Ian felt that creating a new DOCTYPE was a poor idea; one reason was that it would mean recreating the entirety of HTML in DashboardML, with elements bearing the same name and given (presumably) the same semantics.  I don’t really see why that’s a problem, since it’s already been done once before, for a little number we call XHTML.  Now, it might very well be a better idea to create WHATML instead of DashboardML.  That’s fine with me; in fact, I mentioned that as a possibility in my proposal.  The actual name and home of the new language doesn’t much matter to me, although I should point out that whoever is responsible for the new language, it’s going to require either a new DOCTYPE or some kind of namespacing solution.  If Apple’s additions can be accepted by the WHAT WG in time to get Dashboard shipped with Tiger, then great.  If not, they’ll have to move ahead without that imprimatur.  My goal is to advocate that they do so in a standards-friendly way.

In response to my comment that I thought Dashboard would be better off as XML instead of HTML, because that way you can make up whatever markup is needed, Ian said:

So let me get this right. It’s ok to send proprietary non-standard markup over the Web, so long as the angle brackets are XML angle brackets and not HTML angle brackets?

In a word, yes.  That’s what the W3C has been telling us for a while now, so why would I think otherwise?  Sure, the W3C publishes new stuff using XML and it’s all been thoroughly vetted and worked over and generally committeed to death, and that’s great.  But XML makes it possible to invent any markup language you like.  So far as I can tell, that’s kind of its point.  As long as things are well-formed, you’re good; if you’re both well-formed and valid, then angels descend from the markup heavens to sing your praises.

HTML is a well-defined, long-understood (almost-)SGML application.  Changing it willy-nilly is like making up new words to add to English.  (Hey, did you see that roopyrastic article in last month’s Scientific American?)  On the other hand, if you create a new XML language, then you’ve gone the Esperanto route.  The language is as valid as you say it is, and it is a whole new thing, but at least you’re not polluting an existing language with stuff you made up.

So with XML, anyone can make up anything and release it into the wild.  It might be argued that to send new XML languages flying around the public Web is a technological rebirth of the Tower of Babel, to which I would respond, “What else did you think was going to happen?”  In fact, it’s been happening for a while, as the widespread use of RSS will attest.  I haven’t noticed that being a major problem for anyone, and in fact you can combine RSS and CSS to display them in a browser.  That doesn’t seem to be a problem either.

Besides, all of the XML-centric solutions, flawed or not, were excluded by Dave from the outset when he said that Dashboard widgets needed to be HTML, not XML.  The reason given was to lower the entry barrier for would-be widget developers.  I personally don’t agree with that perspective, as I believe anyone skilled enough to create a decent widget will find XHTML (or even namespacing) syntax the least of their concerns.  My disagreement isn’t terribly relevant, though, since I’m not the one defining the way Dashboard widgets work.

As for the concern that adding new stuff to HTML will leave it free of semantics and confuse everyone, I don’t accept that at all.  The semantics that exist in HTML, XHML, and so on exist because we’ve collectively agreed on what they mean.  I don’t mean that we all held a big convention and voted on the meaning of h2.  The HTML specification defined what h2 means semantically, and the rest of us (authors, editors, search engines, etc.) tacitly agreed to go along with that definition.  The same thing can happen again—and, in RSS, already has.  RSS defines its own semantics, and everyone’s agreed to go along with its definitions.  It helps that the elements are given obvious names like description, of course.  RSS also has a title element for every entry in the feed.  Yet nobody, so far as I know, has gotten those title elements confused with HTML’s title element.

So now what?  Now the team at Apple keeps pushing forward to make Dashboard the best product it can be while still making it as easy to develop for as possible.  Fortunately, Dave is willing to publicly discuss how that will be accomplished, which is nothing short of amazing (although totally in keeping with what I know of Dave).  He has also said Apple is willing to submit their additions to the WHAT WG for discussion.  I honestly don’t know what more one could ask for at this juncture.  There is every opportunity to work with Apple (rather than protesting against it) to make sure that Dashboard widgets interoperate with the Web’s foundations… or at least don’t cause unnecessary problems.  Apple is listening.  It’s up to us to talk with them, understanding their needs and limitations while making clear our concerns and suggestions.

Despite my complete lack of time and reluctance to add still more mail to my bulging Inbox, I may well have to subscribe to the WHAT WG public mailing list.

• Dashboard Again was published on Thursday, July 15th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Browsers and Standards categories.
• There have been eighteen replies.

It’s been interesting to see the back-and-forth over Dashboard the past few days.  Dave‘s posts have been greatly illuminating, and I belatedly discovered Tim Bray‘s initial reaction and further thoughts on the topic.  Dave has now done a test implementation of adding a default namespace for Dashboard widgets, using the namespace URI http://www.apple.com/2004/xhtml-extended/.  That doesn’t (yet?) point to an actual document, but that’s okay; URIs don’t have to refer to a specific resource.  They just have to be unique.  This is in contrast to URLs, which in theory have to point to something that actually exists.  Although clearly reality has a long way to go before it catches up with that theory.

As Dave points out, his approach not only makes it possible for HTML to be extended without breaking with existing standards, it also provides a handy “pay attention to the Dashboard stuff” trigger and it opens a clear path toward supporting XML-based widgets in the future.  This is all kinds of cool, and I can’t see any real drawbacks.  If you do, let Dave know, or comment on this post; I’ll collect them (since Dave doesn’t presently have commenting on his site) for his review.

Despite it being Dave’s second choice, the “create a new DOCTYPE” idea is something I want to discuss in a little more detail, if only to illustrate how it can work.  Here’s a markup example of an amazingly stupid and useless widget using a hypothetical DashboardML DTD.

<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM
  "http://www.apple.com/dtd/2004/dashboardml-10.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>myWidget</title>
<style type="text/css">
body {background: aquamarine;}
</style>
<script type="text/javascript">
function startup() {
  alert('Happy!  Joy!');
}
</script>
</head>
<body onload="startup();">
<canvas blah="foo" yadda="baz">
<h1>Widget!</h1>
<div class="main">
<p>So cool.</p>
<p>So fine.</p>
</div>
<img src="yar.gif" composite="punchout" alt="Yar!">
<p id="footer">copyleft nobody</p>
</body>
</html>

By referring to a DTD defining a language that looks just like HTML except for the canvas element and composite attribute, along with any other additions, the markup stays free of explicit namespacing and works the way authors already expect.  It really is that simple.  IBM already does something like this, having created an “IBM XHTML 1.1 Transitional” DTD that’s used throughout their Web presence.  The comments at the top of the DTD file explain how it’s different than regular old XHTML, but the executive summary is that it permits some old table-and-spacer-era markup hacks in an XHTML environment.  If you run an IBM-XHTML compliant document through a validator that loads and uses IBM’s DTD to check over the document’s markup, then the document will validate.  The same thing could be done for Dashboard—or for any other project, really.  That’s the beauty of it.  We aren’t constrained to HTML any more, nor even to XHTML.  We’re only constrained by what clients will support… as always.

(It was pointed out to me via e-mail that XHTML is perfect for this, because it’s already modularized so all you have to do is tack on another module.  That would be quite true, except for Dave’s statement that the Dashboard widgets won’t be using XHTML.)

The other potential problem with my suggestion, according to Dave, is that the DOCTYPE is used to pick a rendering mode in current browsers.  Dave says he doesn’t want to restrict widget authors to one mode or the other.  Now, I’d personally have no problem forcing all widgets to be rendered in standards mode, but that’s probably just my inner purist talking.  If it were important to allow quirks mode, then create a transitional DashboardML DOCTYPE that triggers it; use the default (above) for triggering standards mode.  This would be consistent with current DOCTYPE switching schemes.

Regardless, at this point, I think we’re pretty well assured that things are headed in the right direction.  That’s very much thanks to Dave’s openness and genuine interest in doing the right thing, not to mention his swift response times.  Where things go from here, we’ll see, both at Surfin’ Safari and (I expect) by way of submissions to and work by the WHAT WG—which itself will be the subject of a post in the near future.

• Extended Dash was published on Friday, July 9th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Browsers, Mac, and Standards categories.
• There have been ten replies.

Now we know more about Dashboard, and according to Dave, the widgets are indeed HTML, not XML.  Fortunately, hastily-applied bandages kept my ruptured vein from killing me.  As for my TiBook, some quick squeegee work saved the display, but now the keys are kind of sticky.  How’s that for an image?

As most people who know me are aware, I’m very much a real-world kind of guy.  That side of me is in favor of what’s being done to make Safari and the Dashboard more useful.  The additions to HTML and the DOM are indeed minimal—so far.  I’m sure the first few proprietary extensions to IE/Win were minimal, too.  After all, it’s just a tag called MARQUEE.  What’s one more element?

I also recognize that HTML is far too limited for anything except simple document structuring.  It doesn’t have interesting controls like sliders, and it certainly doesn’t provide any joy for people who want irregular shapes.  SVG does provide such things, but Dave’s point about it being a huge task to implement is understandable.  If only Quartz had been based on SVG instead of another technology… but there’s no sense crying about spilled milk under the bridge now, I suppose.

Of course, the theorist in me is quivering in outrage.  The browser-wars veteran isn’t too thrilled either.  For years, we heard Microsoft and Netscape say things like “standards are secondary to customer demands” and “standards aren’t as useful as the cool new proprietary features we’re adding”.  These things need not be inimical to standards support.  They should not require a breaking of standards.

As I observed previously, making Dashboard widgets be XML would solve the problem, or at least could fairly easily.  Dave says that won’t happen:

…it was suggested that the widgets be written in XML rather than HTML and that all of the new tags and attributes be namespaced. However, this would have dramatically increased the complexity of crafting Dashboard widgets. People know how to write HTML, but most of those same people have never written an XML file, and namespaces are a point of confusion.

I agree about namespaces being confusing; the only reason I have any comfort level with them is because we had to define multiple namespaces for the XML format we used on DevEdge, and I made enough mistakes using them that I eventually came to understand them.  Sort of.  To an author who’s only ever seen HTML or even XHTML, they would likely be very annoying.  I’d like to point out, though, that I suggested not namespacing everything, but creating a whole new DashboardML that used a whole bunch of elements that looked and acted the same as XHTML, with whatever additions were needed.  Thus the beginning of the document (after the DOCTYPE) might look something like this:

<html xmlns="http://www.apple.com/2004/dashboardml">
<head>
<title>This is an example</title>
</head>

So instead of pointing to the XHTML namespace URI, you point to the DashboardML namespace URI.  The end result is that you can have a document that looks exactly like XHTML, except for the additions (composite and so on).  It seems like it would be fairly simple to do, but again, I can’t say that with any authority.

So let’s assume that, for whatever reason, the above approach isn’t possible within the Tiger timeframe.  There is another way, one I mentioned briefly in my last post.  That would be to create a new DTD for DashboardML, one that’s a direct copy of the HTML 4.01 DTD with the needed additions.  It could look like this:

<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.apple.com/dtd/2004/dashboardml-10.dtd">

That would point to a DTD that defines DashboardML.  DashboardML would be exactly like HTML 4.01 (or whatever version they wanted) in every respect except for the additions of the canvas element and the composite attribute.  The advantage is that they can add more things if needed, and not pollute the HTML space.  Since Apple’s working with the WHAT WG to get these things accepted, then perhaps the WHAT WG should host the DTD.  Then it might look something like:

<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.whatwg.org/dtd/2004/whatml-10.dtd">

The URI could be anything, so long as it pointed to an actual DTD.  I don’t even care where it lives, so long as it lives somewhere.  I should also point out that this would need to be done even if the widgets were XML, as opposed to an HTML-like language.  Either way, they keep Dashboard extensions out of the HTML space.

Why should we even bother?  One word: validation.  By providing a DTD that defines the markup language being used to create the widgets, validation becomes a snap.  That’s important, because with validation, widget authors can keep their markup clean.  It will help them with their development efforts.

Here’s another reason to bother: reducing confusion.  “But Eric, a new DOCTYPE will increase confusion!” you might be thinking.  Maybe at first, although overall I doubt it will.  The confusion-reducing aspect is that when widgets get published on the Web—and they will be published on the Web—there will be an obvious indication that the markup is not traditional HTML, but something really close to it.  Browsers can then do what they’ve always done: handle what they understand, and ignore what they don’t.

It’s been argued that Dashboard widgets are intended for a closed environment, and not to sit out on the Web.  True, but that won’t change anything.  Within a week of their appearing in the WWDC build of Tiger, Dashboard widgets appeared on the public Web (they’ve since been pulled offline).  This won’t exactly tail off as more widgets are built.  If anything, we’ll see more and more widgets getting out into the wild—for example, when people find a widget they like and adapt it for use on their public sites.  The calendar is the most obvious example that comes to mind.  In order to keep things straight, widgets need to have their own DOCTYPE.  If nothing else, it will provide a convenient explanation when someone throws a widget onto their site and it breaks in other browsers.  (“Yeah, see, that uses DashboardML and only Safari supports it…”)

Over at the WaSP, Anders Pearson wrote:

Overall, though, it’s not that big a deal. Safari does an excellent (not perfect) job of supporting the various HTML, XHTML, and CSS specs as they’re written and ultimately, that’s what’s most important. If developers don’t want to use the extensions, they don’t have to.

As long as these extensions happen within a new document type, then I agree.  Allowing them to operate within any document bearing a W3C DOCTYPE would be a big, big mistake.

• DashboardML was published on Thursday, July 8th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Browsers, Mac, and Standards categories.
• There have been four replies.

In his most recent post on the underpinnings of the Dashboard, titled Introducing the Canvas, Dave Hyatt said the following:

Another extension we made to HTML is a new element called the canvas. This element is essentially an image element that supports programmatic drawing.

And then, a bit later on:

In addition to the canvas element, we’ve also introduced a new attribute onto the img element. The composite attribute allows you to control how an image gets composited.

Wait a minute.  Did I just get hit over the head and magically transported back to 1994?  New HTML elements and attributes?  What the bleeding hell?!?

[insert sound of forehead banging repeatedly on desktop here]

I hope I’m reading his post incorrectly.  I hope that what Dave is really saying is that Dashboard widgets are actually XML, albeit an XML that looks very much like HTML except they’ve added some nifty stuff to it.  If so, great, fine, no problem.  XML lets you do whatever you want, really.  But if these are widgets that use actual HTML DOCTYPEs, and yet add this stuff, then the throbbing vein in my forehead is going to rupture and spray blood all over my shiny TiBook.  We just left that tag soup party.  I really don’t want to have another steaming, fetid bowl of it plopped down in front of me.  Not even one that exists in a ‘closed’ environment like OS X.

Even if Dashboard widgets are currently built around invalid HTML documents, it seems like there’s still plenty of time to convert them to well-formed XML, thus (largely) solving the problem.  Heck, there’s even time to create a DTD for the widgets, thus permitting the widgets to be both well-formed and valid.  I’m all in favor of that approach.  As a measure of last resort, a new HTML DTD could be written for “Dashboard HTML 1.0” or something like that.

But if it’s all really broken HTML 4.01, not XML, then there’s a serious problem.  From a forward-compatibility perspective, the Dashboard would be no better than Microsoft’s CSS-like extensions, the ones that let authors change the appearance of the browser’s scrollbars and other such wackiness.  In fact, they’d be much worse because there now exists the ability to create the Dashboard within the open framework the W3C has (slowly and painstakingly) created.  To ignore that would be the worst kind of regressive move.

• Wrapped in Canvas was published on Wednesday, July 7th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the CSS, Mac, and Standards categories.
• There have been nine replies.

Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber pointed out that Tiger‘s Dashboard isn’t quite as much of a Konfabulator rip-off as it first appeared.  His primary point was that the principles in Dashboard and Konfabulator aren’t anything new, and haven’t been for a couple of decades.  However, it was his highlight of a comment by Dave Hyatt that really caught my eye.  Dave said:

I wanted to blog briefly to clear up what the widgets actually are written in.  They are Web pages, plain and simple (with extra features thrown in for added measure).  Apple’s own web site says “build your own widgets using the JavaScript language”, but that’s sort of misleading.  The widgets are HTML+CSS+JS.  They are not some JS-only thing.

So… with the skills I already possess, I can create my own Dashboard gadgets, as can thousands of similarly skilled designers?  How cool is that?  I’m already itching to get my hands on the Dashboard developer information, so I can find out what these things can do and how I can bend them to my will.  As a trivial example, if I can get information via SOAP, and I can’t imagine why I wouldn’t, then I can use the weather data service I recently linkblogged to grab the current and next-seven-days’ forecast for any location in the United States, not to mention present the resulting information in a really beautiful way via the Dashboard.  Since the service returns results for latitude/longitude coordinates, it would be best crossed with a dataset correlating city names to lat/lon coordinates.  That shouldn’t be terribly difficult.

In fact, Web services in general could get a huge boost from the Dashboard.  Search gadgets for Amazon, Google, and any of a thousand other sources would be a snap.  Infoaggregators, pulling in data from various sources into one place, would become very simple.  Creating point-and-click editors for OS and application preferences should be trivial.  You’d also have the ability to grab information about the machine itself (memory usage, disk usage, CPU activity, top listings, etc.) and present it in truly useful and beautiful ways.  The possibilities are nearly endless, and my few fairly pedestrian ideas likely don’t even begin to touch on what can be done by a really creative programmer.

That’s especially true if, extrapolating from Ian Hickson‘s recent comments, the Web Core contains XFormsWebForms 2.0 support, thus making advanced controls available in Dashboard gadgets.

Then there’s iChat AV.  I’d like to see it permit audio chatting with AIM users, as opposed just video chats, but then I think that should have been possible already.  What really got me stoked was (of course) the gratuitious eye candy.    As Apple says:

iChat for Tiger introduces a new kind of interface for video conferencing. In its three-dimensional view, your buddies seem more like they’re in the room with you, making it easier to follow the conversation. Their images are even reflected in front of them, just as if they were sitting around a conference-room table.

Well, that’s true if you often hold meetings around conference-room tables made entirely of smoked glass.  What Apple really needs to add to iChat is the ability to pick different surfaces for the “tabletop” beneath the video windows.  They could include a highly polished, dark mahogany surface, for example, to really convey that upscale conference room feeling.  Or a reflective granite surface, for a feeling of solidity.  Hell, how about having the video portals hang above rippling water, with the video images reflected in the waves?  It seems like Core Image has all the pieces necessary to make any of those things happen, and then some.

For that matter, making it simple to drag an image file onto that tabletop and have it mapped on seems a snap.  You should be able to put your company logo there, embossed or glazed or otherwise applied to the tabletop, whatever its base surface effect.  Basically, you should be able to make the tabletop look even more killer than it already does.  Why not?  If you’re going to include major eye candy, then no sense holding back.

Addendum: in the comments, Jason Lustig pointed out something I failed to mention, which is that the tabletop is good for much more than just awesome visual effects.  It also makes a great shared workspace, a place where one participant could drop a file for everyone else to pick up.  As he put it, “just like if you were passing out sheets at a real meeting!”.  Exactly—and, of course, the document could even resemble a real document by generating a thumbnail of the document’s actual appearance, and mapping that onto the virtual sheet on the tabletop.  Whee, more eye candy!  I hope the Apple programmers add that ability to iChat before Tiger is released.

Add things like Automator, and this definitely looks like an OS upgrade well worth buying.  I really hope that “the first half of 2005” means “in January, but we wanted to hedge our bets”.

• Tiger Watching was published on Wednesday, June 30th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Mac and Standards categories.
• There have been eleven replies.

I hate (American) sitcoms and soap operas.  That’s a sweeping generalization, a trend that seems to be sweeping the Web of late.  No choice but to continue.

The majority of American sitcoms derive their humor—or, from my perspective, “humor”—from characters getting into embarrassing situations and then trying frantically to get out of them.  The laughs are generated by watching this person be humilated, often at length.  Generally, the humiliatee is receiving some form of just desserts: they got themselves into the situation through selfishness or arrogance or some other form of hubris, and end up paying the price.  In any event, they get to squirm and flail before our eyes and it’s funny!  Only it isn’t.

I dislike American soap operas not because they’re harshly lit and seem like community theater writ large.  I have no issues with the acting, which is actually fairly impressive in terms of the quality-to-quantity ratio.  I dislike soap operas because they’re nothing but sturm und drang, one melodramatic setpiece after another.  The number one rule is, nobody gets to be happy for long.  Anyone who does find happiness is just being set up for a major, major trauma, likely at the hands of whoever is currently making them happy.  (Although death is far less traumatic in soap operas than in real life, as people come back from the dead and aren’t even zombified when they do.  Which I suppose is good news for the power grid.)  There’s only so much of the constant chest-heaving, garment-rending dramatics I can handle before I glaze over and start to closely contemplate my cuticles.

Now why would I be talking about this when everyone else is talking about validation?  It’s a mystery, I agree.

• Valid Concerns was published on Thursday, June 17th, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Standards category.
• There have been three replies.

Andy King, author of the excellent Speed Up Your Site and purveyor of fine content at the new Optimization Week, has posted a very nice review of More Eric Meyer on CSS.  I think this might be the first official review of the book, and if he posts it over at Amazon it will very likely be the first review there as well be one of the first few reviews over there (someone posted the first review some time today!).

According to Andy, Jeffrey Zeldman (who just launched a superfine redesign over at The Daily Report) and I “actually make standards sexy.”  Oh, yes, big boy… mark up my content, you style stud, you…

Okay, I promise never to do that again.

If there are other reviews out there and I’ve missed them, please let me know!

• MEMoC Under Review was published on Monday, May 3rd, 2004.
• It was assigned to the Books, CSS, Standards, and Writing categories.
• There have been seven replies.