Re: <link> vs <style></style>

I'm afraid this is getting quickly off topic for this (if it wasn't already
in the first place). I answered the first post because I thought it would
answer the question promptly but this doesn't seem to be the case. If you
really want to discuss this in further depth, please do so privately.


At 16:09 15/12/2000 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote:
>> >The difference between <link> and an include, bandwidth-wise, is just about
>> >zero. Actually, the include would save you one line. 
>>
>> Well by include I understood including the entire style sheet (in <style>
>> tags) using SSI. That would waste bandwidth.
>
>Someone else on this list pointed out that a LINK'd stylesheet can be
>cached, so if that's true you'd be right. But on the first page there's no
>difference, since the browser needs to see the whole stylesheet somehow or
>other.

I was thinking about that argument but forgot to include it. Generally you
hope that people will visit more than just one page. The style sheet will
indeed be cached, so you do save bandwidth even though not on the first
request.

>> >SSI doesn't require the escaping of any characters, and won't interfere
with
>> >code validity at all. It's done with a tag that looks like a comment, and
>> >the included file should also be written in valid html.
>> 
>> I think everybody here knows how SSI works :)
>
>That's what I thought - so what was the deal with valid code and escaping
><'s? 

The deal is that if your CSS contains such characters and it is embedded in
the (x)html page that the browser receives (as opposed to the one that is
stored on your server which only has an SSI directive) then it will be an
invalid page. The browser doesn't know whether you used SSI or include your
stylesheet directly in a <style> tag. It doesn't care, it shouldn't care,
it mustn't care. If however you use a <link> tag, then you don't need to
escape &lt; and friends as that content will not be inserted into the (x)html.

-- robin b.
After all, what is your hosts' purpose in having a party?  Surely not for
you to enjoy yourself; if that were their sole purpose, they'd have simply
sent champagne and women over to your place by taxi.

Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 16:35:57 UTC