 | | Re: Which HTML to use? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) If by "much faster" you mean a ten-millionth of a second quicker per page display, then you're correct. :-) (...) Actually, the server doesn't have to generate the HTML on a tag-by-tag basis...it's more efficient than that. The difference in (...) (22 years ago, 16-Apr-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Which HTML to use? —Constantine Hannaher
|
| | | | (...) Thanks for the quick reply. If a less legacy-burdened coding for LUGNET is a goal, then that's ok by me. But. Old browsers is not the hang-up, as far as I can tell. (Especially since some really old browsers, like IE2 just to take a random (...) (22 years ago, 16-Apr-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which HTML to use? —William R. Ward
|
| | | | (...) OK I moved this part of the thread there... Why not just use <h1 class="postheaders">foo</h1> instead? I'm not a CSS expert but that's how I would have done it... --Bill. (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Which HTML to use? —Constantine Hannaher
|
| | | | (...) Because that way every instance of a first-level heading that needed the desired effect would have to include the class attribute. When hand-coding, especially, it's a waste, and the coder has to remember how to achieve the effect. By (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.publish.html)
|
| | | | |
