W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2000

Re: <link> vs <style></style>

From: Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:25:08 +0100
Message-Id: <4.1.20001215212013.00aaa468@pop3.norton.antivirus>
To: Beth Skwarecki <skwareea@screech.cs.alfred.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 15:07 15/12/2000 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote:
>> SSI would lose you some performance, for no good reason in this case. Imho
>> <link> is cleaner, better bandwidth-wise, and also has the advantage that
>> it won't interfere with the validity of your (x)html code. With an external
>> style sheet you don't have to escape < and friends.
>The time it takes to insert an include is negligible, though I grant you
>that it's existent. 

By performance I meant server performance. If you're already using includes
on all those pages, then it won't make a difference, but if you don't have
them on for all those pages then you'll lose performance.

>The difference between <link> and an include, bandwidth-wise, is just about
>zero. Actually, the include would save you one line. 

Well by include I understood including the entire style sheet (in <style>
tags) using SSI. That would waste bandwidth.

>SSI doesn't require the escaping of any characters, and won't interfere with
>code validity at all. It's done with a tag that looks like a comment, and
>the included file should also be written in valid html.

I think everybody here knows how SSI works :)

-- robin b.
Always remember you're unique just like everyone else. 
Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 15:26:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:56 UTC