468060 (122) [Avatar] Offline
#1
Why does Manning employ proof-readers who are incompetent? It took me about one minute to find four mistakes on four random pages:

[sic] Following is a line of CSS. This is called a declaration. This declaration is made up of a property (color) and a value
(black):


In coherent English, this would be:

The following is a line of text which is called a declaration: this is made up of a property (color) and a value (black).

p. 462.

"PreCSS (https://github.com/jonathantneal/precss) is [sic] PostCSS plugin pack"

p.461

"If you had to write out all these vendor prefixes by hand, it [would be] is tedious and prone to error.

p.450

"But the two are very similar, with mostly
minor syntactic differences distinguishing them from one another—For [sic] instance,

305613 (1) [Avatar] Offline
#2
FYI precss and postcss are not the same
468060 (122) [Avatar] Offline
#3
Despite the poor grammar and bizarre sentence structure, I do think that that sentence makes it clear that PreCSS is a plugin of PostCSS.
Keith J Grant (36) [Avatar] Offline
#4
Don’t blame the proofreaders -- these typos were all me smilie

The MEAP you’re reading doesn’t reflect all the changes from final copy editing. Thanks for the heads up—I’ve double checked these passages in the final print edition, and they have all been corrected. They will be fixed in the final eBook/pBook you receive smilie
468060 (122) [Avatar] Offline
#5
>>Don’t blame the proofreaders -- these typos were all me smilie

The MEAP you’re reading doesn’t reflect all the changes from final copy editing. Thanks for the heads up—I’ve double checked these passages in the final print edition, and they have all been corrected. They will be fixed in the final eBook/pBook you receive

The email which was sent out specifically said that the text had been proof-read, supposedly by an entire team of people.