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
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:31:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC