|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 02/16/07 19:31
On 16 Feb, 17:35, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:
> In the Ansel Adams site the 63 images included take a total of 596 KB, and
> the code in the index.html page takes 40 KB. So why should I be concerned as
> to just what construct the code uses given that the download time for the
> code is a minimal component of the total download time for the page,
Again you're popping up these sophisticated but totally fallacies
arguments.
This isn't about the volume of the finished markup, it's about the
semantics of that markup and its robustness to varying display
contexts.
> especially given that the generated code works as intended on every browser
> on which it was checked?
That's because you think that "checking on browsers" is a sufficient
condition for good authoring.
> As an aside, an advantage of Freeway is that if a new release makes an
> improvement in the generated code it is a trivial matter to re-upload the
> site to benefit from that improvement.
Why is this useful? It's only an editor! It ought to be getting it
right first time. If you told me it was a compression algorithm, then
you might have a point.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|