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

Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:13:41 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200608210613.k7L6Dgb27326@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> 
> 
> I don't see how there can be such evidence when choice is denied...but
> I'm of course willing to be put right--send me the references and I'll
> read the evidence.

Obvious examples to me are:

- deliberate disabling of caching, as a policy rule, rather than 
  case  by case;
- content management systems that use CGI style URLs and de facto
  inhibit caching (abuse of ? URLs has meant they have had to be 
  exempted from the general cachability of GET requests);
- cookies on imags, compromising caching;
- failure to use fixed table layouts (resulting in delayed rendering);
- failure to use out of line scripts (to improve caching);
- heavy use of inline styles, resulting in general code bloat;
- failure to use appropriate JPEG qualities and small pallette GIFs;
- use of JPEG for screenshots and other inappropriate content;
- excessive use of image replacement, particularly without alternative
  text (forcing 10 plus second wait times for pages to be usable).
etc.

Many of these are not specifically style related, but they do demonstrate
that authors have no understanding of performance issues, or the people
who commission designs have no concern about performance, and overrule
authors concerns (some of these have no real downside for the commissioner,
so have to be ingnorance).

A large amount of web coding is cut and paste coding, where designers copy
from other pages without understanding how the code actually operates.
Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 07:07:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT