W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Re[27]: css with attribues [hardware]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:32:54 +0000
Message-Id: <EE790957-42A4-453E-95BD-5A9A291B1429@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 22 Jan 2008, at 14:49, Dmitry Turin wrote:
>>>>> should download css before parsing html.
> DD> But CSS is supposed to be an optional presentational layer. The
> DD> operative word should be "may" not "should".

> P.S.
>   'optional' theoretically or practically ?

Practically.

> I know people,
> who browse without downloading pictures (e.g. I),
> but i know nobody, who without css.

I have turned CSS off from time to time. It can make some documents  
much more readable.

>   As was mentioned, one css-file per hundreds other files of site
> is less one persent of traffic, so this is not actual for robots.

And as was mentioned, downloading the file is not the source of  
complexity.

>>> DD> Lynx is a browser. Lynx does not support JavaScript.
>>> It cover very little part of population.
>>> To my mind, it's anachronism.
> DD> To my mind it is a small, fast, useful tool.
>
>   Size of program is not important in epoch of DVD, BluRay, etc.

It is important in the epoch of palmtops and GRPS network connections  
that are charged by the megabyte.

>   It's not important, how much time of rendering is less constants
> of human perception (1 sec): 0.05 sec or 0.5 sec
> (comparing browsers in identical conditions, i.e. for textual  
> framework).
>   And without pictures, it's not useful - observe today's inet.

Rubbish. There might be a lot of image dependent content on the web,  
but there is vast amounts that is perfectly understandable with just  
text (the majority of the BBC website springs to mind).


-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 17:33:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT