W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:04:07 +0200
Message-ID: <42CCB7C7.3040303@tu-clausthal.de>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>

Mikko Rantalainen:
> I consider colspan and rowspan as premature optimization. If you're 
> afraid of extra bytes to transfer, just apply compression. Reduntant 
> strings can be easily compressed.

'rowspan' and 'colspan' *are* a kind of (2D RLE) compression, which 
could easily be decompressed (at least in the case of 'colspan') if 
needed, but they additionally express connectiveness.

> Any closing tag could be easily replaced with </> because it's clear
> in XHTML anyway which starting tag it should be matched with...

Yes, I never understood why it wasn't allowed (optionally) in XML. I can 
understand that other SHORTTAG features can be confusing and a little 
harder to parse and therefore were left out of XML (and thus XHTML), but 
not empty end tag (or whatever SGML actually calls it).
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 05:04:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT