__/ [ Borek ] on Saturday 02 September 2006 09:19 \__
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:25:54 +0200, John Bokma <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> second note: 4 944 vs 3 902 sounds like quite a saving. The problem is
>> that nowadays quite some site send out their HTML compressed (gzip), and
>> it might very well be the case that the former is smaller then the
>> latter.
>>
>> But Google *should* have a serious look at their HTML, I agree on that
>> point.
>
> Google is a bunch of morons when it comes to HTML. Look at their page -
> they for ages use one-letter ids (two years at least IIRC) to make the
> code shorter and to save on bandwidth, but they can't understand that they
> can save huge properly using css. That's an old news for some.
Very sad news, too. To elaborate on my other post, this sets
a terrible examples for Webmasters (think along the lines
of: "well, even Google don't make it valid, so why should
/I/?"). What's more, how are newer and less mature browsers
supposed to cope with attributes that intentionally neglect
quotes/apostrophes? Isn't that what
specification/standards/recommendations are for? Equality
and independence on a product? That which doesn't involve
hacks, workarounds and undocumented exception handling? What
about OpenDocument? I am glad that Google don't have a go at
making /that/ 'efficient'... I am worried that Google is
beginning to adopt Microsoft's habits of 'extending'
standards to suit their own convenience and agenda
(compromising for speed in that case). Microsoft Office
formats, for example, use binary because it's quicker than
XML or a well-structured and easily interpertable
(backward-'engineerable') form, among other reasons.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Far away from home, robots build people"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:20pm up 44 days 2:32, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
