That is my problem with it, as stated for the third time. His conclusion reaches far beyond what his carefully selected evidence supports.
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.