W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: XHTML Applications and XML Processors [was Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript]

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:14:25 +0200
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e203d2tmeajis97vtgmdtn80mlqoedsjv2@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
>First, a "page" weighing in at 50 kb will take roughly 20 seconds to
>fully load at 56 k baud.  This is certainly slow (I agree), but users at
>this connection speed are accustomed to this speed of page delivery,
>dynamic content or not.  So it may be frustrating, but I do not see
>"harm".

Note that the browser might not have the full bandwidth of the link
available to it, the user might also have his mail client download
mails, his BitTorrent client download the latest Linux distribution,
or listen to some Internet radio. So yes, there would be considerable
additional frustration for many users if we were to adopt Mark's model.

>This presents some real serious usability/accessibility issues for
>those users who, through no fault of their own, *must* await the final
>load of the document so that the technology that they use to interact
>with *that* mainstream browser will function.

I can see no difference for such users. Could you cite an example where
Mark's processing model would give some advantage to any user? As far as
I can see, only specification writers, content authors, and browser
developers would gain something, as his model as a bit simpler than what
needs to be implemented.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 05:14:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT