W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2001

RE: Point of order!

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:54:53 -0800
To: <cavre@mindspring.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005f01c09148$38d6fbe0$0100a8c0@aries>
Cavre wrote:
"XML and XHTML is more expensive to deliver than HTML especially if you want
to follow W3C standards."

Reply:
I don't mean to be rude, Cavre, but this has to be the dumbest post I've
seen in a long time. To begin with, how can someone concerned with brevity
of code write a post so long, repetitive, and incoherent? My God, man, get
hold of yourself! Have some respect for other people's bandwidth!

Now to address the only real point you made (summed up in one sentence
above):

Using standards-compliant code, specifically XHTML Strict (or modular XHTML)
should - if done properly - dramatically DECREASE your bandwidth needs, thus
saving you plenty. The more strictly I adhere to XHTML, the leaner my pages
get.

My guess is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, that
you've never actually built a page in XHTML Strict, and that your current
pages are probably a mess. But instead of guessing, why not just put our
cards on the table? How about this:

You post the URIs of a couple of your pages that you think will be bloated
if recoded in XHTML. Real pages, please. I'm sure that there are plenty of
people on this list who'd be willing to take a look at them and suggest how
they might be made standards-compliant. Then we can see if switching to
XHTML makes life harder or easier.

So what do you say? Are you willing to put it to the test, or were you just
trolling?

Charles F. Munat
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 15:48:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:45 GMT