Re: CSS: Extended tiling. Proposal

Hi, David,

>If you really mean machine instructions, this is a one time cost that is
>covered by the requirements for loading the page itself.

>If you mean the dynamic number of instructions fetched from (cache) memory
>during a client HTTP access, it could be right, but it does not pollute
>the network bandwidth, and is small compared with the processing capacity
>of modern machine.

Please don't forget that we are using not only modern *desktop* machine but
many
other devices to browse the Net. And more and more frequently from wireless
connections.
UA needs to send at least header request to the server and it is again those
40k.

>If you mean that this is the protocol overhead on the network, you need
>a better browser.  Even browsers that unthinkingly let the request headers
>bloat probably produce well under 2KB of request headers.  Of course, for
>images like this, there will normally be no request headers, if the web
>site is properly configured, as the request will be satisfied from cache.

I would say it is an optimistic assumption about server configuration.
I estimate that 40% of Internet authors are not professionals and don't even
know what
"server optimisation" is. And this percentage will be more and more each
year.

>There is a penalty, especially for site entry pages (which can be,
>and in a true world wide web, will often be, deep links), but designed
>pages are already suffering from such penalties with up to 100 images.
>At least with corners, I can read the page and go to the next page
>before the I'm given a chance to view the graphic designer's artistry
>(assuming that layout tables with automatic layout aren't also used).
>With current de facto text replacement usage, I have to wait it out before
>I see what the links are.

Yep! And would you want to see also that not only images but borders will
appear one by one?

Take a look on the map
http://www.telegeography.com/maps/internet/index.html
You probably don't know but Eastern Europe and Asia is still not using flat
rates for Internet access.

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 02:19:58 UTC