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

Re: Re[29]: css with attribues [general]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:31:29 +0000
Message-Id: <DA447494-4E21-4162-8246-AD71483BB84F@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 24 Jan 2008, at 10:12, 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".
>>>   'optional' theoretically or practically ?
> DD> Practically.
> I think 'theoretically separate layer':
>   usual users (not specialists) don't turn off css,

So what?

>   robots always cash css-files.

No they don't (and the word is 'cache').

>>> I know people,
>>> who browse without downloading pictures (e.g. I),
>>> but i know nobody, who without css.
> DD> I have turned CSS off from time to time. It can make some  
> documents
> DD> much more readable.
>
>   Turning off is necessary very seldom: content of these sites are
> always not interesting, so it's never need to turn at second page  
> of site.

If it wasn't interesting, I wouldn't go to the effort of turning CSS  
off to make it more readable.

>>>>> 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.
> DD> It is important in the epoch of palmtops
>
>   It would be laughable, if we disfigure standards, because
> we forget to write concrete program (for special device).

Checks and balances. The cost of implementation is still far far  
greater then any demonstrated benefits.

>
>>>   It's not important, how much time of rendering is less constants
>>> of human perception (1 sec): 0.05 sec or 0.5 sec
>
> You agree, that faster-than-human-perception is not important ?

I'm not commenting on the subject.

>
>>>   And without pictures, it's not useful - observe today's inet.
> DD>  There might be a lot of image dependent content on the web,
> DD> but there is vast amounts that is perfectly understandable with  
> just
> DD> text (the majority of the BBC website springs to mind).
>
> Impossibility itself to display pictures is big strong defect.

If your goal is to look at photographs, then it is a problem. If your  
goal is to read the news or find out the latest stock prices, then it  
isn't. Images are not essential for most communication.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:31:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:59 GMT