Subject:
|
Re: Which HTML to use?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:35:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1993 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Jeremy Scott writes:
> > I'll agree. I will also add that with CSS in use, the server speed will
> > become much faster
>
> If by "much faster" you mean a ten-millionth of a second quicker per page
> display, then you're correct. :-)
>
> > since the cgi program won't have to generate all the long
> > code in HTML, just a short tag defining the class.
>
> 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 time to output
>
> <FONT SIZE="-1"><BIG><BIG><B>foo</B></BIG></BIG></FONT>
>
> versus
>
> <FONT SIZE="+2"><B>foo</B></FONT>
>
> or
>
> <FONT CLASS="glarb">foo</FONT>
>
> is essentially the time it takes for the CPU to copy a few extra characters
> around in memory (far, far less than a microsecond) and output them over the
> TCP/IP connection (also negligable).
>
> The big win that CSS gives (from the server's standpoint) is reducing the
> outgoing bandwidth. And that's good for users, too, of course. :-)
>
> > Let the CSS do all the rest.
>
> I agree, CSS is the way to go. But there will always need to be *some*
> basic old-fashioned HTML in there for really old browsers. You wouldn't
> believe the number of old browsers still in use at libraries and schools. I
> don't know how many are used to view LUGNET, but we'll have to examine that
> sort of thing out carefully before just abandoning old-fashioned HTML.
>
> --Todd
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 example, will
not even connect to the majority of sites anymore.) It's the insistence that
the display of the page look the same or similarly in old browsers as it
does in more modern browsers that can cause trouble. Properly written, a
page in XHTML 1.0 Strict with CSS which looks terrific in modern browsers
will still deliver all of its text to, and be navigable in, Netscape
Navigator 1.1. (Unicode text and PNG graphics are another matter, shh.) It
just won't have the background colors and the font choices and the like, but
<h1> tags will still mean first-level heading, <li> will still mean
list-item, <p> will still mean paragraph...
Now I know you are writing quickly and upon reflection will recognize that
putting a class on a font tag is just a bizarre idea. :-) Although <div
id="postheaders"><h1>foo</h1></div> where an external stylesheet has a
declaration .postheaders h1 {font-size: 0.8ex;} might look a little long, it
puts the burden of figuring out how to display on the rendering engine of
the user agent. I should probably have set the follow-up to publish.html...
Constantine
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Which HTML to use?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Which HTML to use?
|
| (...) 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)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
