- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:28:39 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Yeliz Yesilada" <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Bruce Lawson" <brucel@opera.com>
- Cc: <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> should thikn about what they include everywhere. But if some resource > (e.g. an image) is display none, then it doesn't get downloaded. Which Well, obviously time moves on and browser implementations improve. However, as I recall, when we tested this in the BPWG earlier in our history iirc it was not by any means universally the case that this is so. I expect that Dom has chapter on verse on this, as iirc it was he, as ever, that wrote the test for it. Jo > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] > Sent: 05 March 2009 20:18 > To: Jo Rabin; Yeliz Yesilada; Bruce Lawson > Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org > Subject: Re: FYI - "Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998" > > On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:06:25 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote: > > > Ref Bruce's article: pleased that the work on Shared Web Experiences > got > > a nice mention. However, I'm really not a big fan of CSS Media > Queries. > > Seems like a lot of cost and delay can go into downloading stuff that > > ultimately has a display:none on it. Why serve stuff in the first > place > > if it isn't going to be viewed? > > For content inside the page, that's a fair question (and means people > should thikn about what they include everywhere. But if some resource > (e.g. an image) is display none, then it doesn't get downloaded. Which > is > easier for most people than doing some server-side magic to figure out > who > should get what. > > cheers > > > Jo > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] > > On > >> Behalf Of Yeliz Yesilada > >> Sent: 05 March 2009 17:02 > >> To: Bruce Lawson > >> Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org > >> Subject: Re: FYI - "Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998" > >> > >> Hi Bruce, > >> > >> Great article....This feels like deja vu all over again :) > >> > >> Yeliz. > >> On 5 Mar 2009, at 13:58, Bruce Lawson wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:21:18 -0000, <gina@alierra.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I completely agree with Jakob Nielsen in all aspects mentioned, > >> > > >> > I disagreed with him, and wrote up my personal thoughts at ZDnet > >> > http://zi.ma/6460b8 > >> > > >> > . Anyway, I absolutely sure > >> >> this > >> >> problem will be solved in early future. > >> > > >> > Yes, I think convergence is rapidly occurring. > >> > > >> > bruce > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Bruce Lawson > >> > Web Evangelist > >> > www.opera.com (work) > >> > www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal) > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 20:29:15 UTC