|
|
Posted by Helpful Harry on 02/16/07 23:16
In article <0001HW.C1FB3466002A4726B022094F@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:00:49 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote (in article
> <1171641646.852864.100640@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [responding to my giving a reference to a site produced with Freeway Pro that
> passed "strict" validation]
>
> > Nurse! New keyboards and the monitor wipes please! 8-)
> >
> > This is beautiful in the Adams-like clarity of its demonstration of
> > cluelessness.
> >
> > The last comment could be paraphrased as "Freeway looks like it over- uses
> > <table> markup when inappropriate, please show an example of better coding
> > style". So what do you do, you take an example that's a perfect situation
> > for legitimately using a <table>, then you do it with absolutely
> > positioned <div>s. Total perversity in appropriate markup.
> >
> > If Jukka or Jonathan had done this, it would be funny. It might even be
> > convincing that Freeway could use non-table markup in _any_ situation. As
> > it is though, I have to suspect that it just shows a complete failure to
> > even understand what the issue is, let alone how to solve it.
>
> But the fact remains that the website, whether one likes it or not, displays
> in every browser tested, six of them, *exactly* as intended. If the results
> are as wanted, why should I be concerned about the underlying code structure
Bloated code takes longer to download and chews through data cap limits
quicker. The same goes for using over-sized / high resolution images,
but that of course is MUCH worse.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|