And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms. Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set". Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout. Awfully demanding, aren't you?
> And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms.
That two words can be synonyms does not mean they have only one shared meaning. In context, a thing can sometimes be one but not the other, e.g. A dictionary is a common type of book, but it is not typical of books to consist of lists of definitions set in very small type on very thin pages.
I don't understand why you're insisting on interpreting the word as "common" as I have already stated that that was not my meaning and in the context of the article (in which the author uses a single example to reflect badly on the whole) it's likely not that of the author's.
> Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set".
My point. I disagree with the author's attempt to depict this case as characteristic of the whole set of CSS layouts.
> Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout.
Hardly. I only wish for the author to restrict his conclusion to one that is supported by his example.
