Using margin is better ! If you use position:relative position:absolute You need understand correlative with div outside

we get the benefit of isolating request specific logic without cramming it into a ActiveRecord model that will be used in multiple controllers/actions

Snaps each pick a ‘base’, for example, Ubuntu18 (corresponding to the set of minimal debs in Ubuntu 18.04 LTS). Nevertheless, the choice of base does not impact on your ability to use a snap on any of the supported Linux distributions or versions — it’s a choice of the publisher and should be invisible to you as a user or developer.

There is a dimension of personal preference to it. I don't like to expose more than strictly necessary to external consumers, because it makes it harder to track usages. If you find a bind:prop in a consumer, you know prop is used (which you already kind of knew since the prop is part of the "public" API of the component). Done. If you find a bind:this, you now need to track all usages of this this.

I'm suggesting that the cookbook apps be self-contained & forkable. 3rd parties could host their own cookbook recipes, possibly using a forked cookbook from an already established pattern.

Content that is self-contained in that it makes sense on its own when taken out of context. That could mean a widget, a blog post or even a comment within a blog post.

Self contained. All of the source code is accessible inside the image. One can change any of it at any time. Every tool is written in Smalltalk. If one doesn't like how something works, one can change it. If one wants to add a feature, one is empowered to. Since everything is open, one can even change how the language works. It's programming without constraints. The original refactoring tools were written in Smalltalk.

Beginning the issue with “are” or “is” often leads to a clearer and more concise expression of the issue than beginning it with “may,” “can,” “does,” or “should.” The latter beginnings may lead to vague or ambiguous versions of the issue. Examine the following alternative statements of the judicial issue from Aiken Industries, Inc. (TC, 1971), acq.: Issue 2 (Poor): Are the interest payments exempt from the withholding tax? Issue 2 (Poor): Should the taxpayer exempt the interest payments from withholding tax? In the first version of issue 2 above, to which interest payments and which withholding tax is the writer referring? The issue does not stand alone since it cannot be precisely understood apart from separately reading the brief�s facts. The extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. In the second version, the question can be interpreted as a moral or judgment issue rather than a legal one. Whether the taxpayer should do (or should not do) something may be a very different issue than the legal question of what the law requires. A legal brief, however, should focus on the latter. Rewriting issue 2 as follows leads to a clearer expression of the precise issue: Issue 2 (Better): Are interest payments exempt from the U.S. 30% withholding tax when paid to an entity established in a tax treaty country for no apparent purpose other than to escape taxation on the interest received?

Issues should be stated so that they “stand alone.” That is, issues should be completely understandable without reference to the facts or other sections of the brief or judicial decision. Use of the definite article “the” indicates that the issue does not stand alone when it alludes to prior information.