Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Ah...I misunderstood you. When you said "ample evidence" I thought you 
> were referring to studies, reports, statistics...and I was saying that I 
> was happy to have my view changed on reading such material. But what you 
> meant was that in *your view*, authors are clueless, and you base this 
> on that fact that there are web pages out there that execute 
> inefficiently.

Here's a study:

Take one example: writing a page with <table> markup is inefficient from 
the point of view of browser page load times. <table> is the 9th most 
often used element. Conclusion: authors make bad decisions.

> So my point still stands; you can't be sure that authors cannot be 
> trusted with features that are denied them...since they don't actually 
> have those features available to them to use inefficiently!

There are plenty of features that authors can use inefficiently. The fact 
that authors mis-use them is why Web browser vendors are reluctant to add 
*more* features that can be used inefficiently.

If there were no such features already available, your point would stand, 
but this is not the case.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:18:34 UTC