On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Charles Roper wrote:
Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter, more concise, bandwidth-saving ones?
I consider semantics more important than length. This comes up enough that it should maybe be in a FAQ.
On small pages, a few extra bytes of HTML won't make a big difference, but on very large pages (in terms of markup), all those extra HTML classes and their uF values could pile on the KBs. I would argue that on-the-fly compression of HTML (mod_gzip, mod_deflate, PHP's zlib et al) is mature enough now to be considered a better solution for reducing page size over using shorter uF attributes. I would also argue that longer, more readable attributes are more in keeping with the uF goal of being for humans first, machines second.
I agree with all of this, but I think a more fundamental issue is that this problem is always presented as a hypothetical, and we shouldn't spend out time trying to solve hypothetical problems. We know readability is a problem when someone can't understand something. We'll know size is a problem when someone says they can't implement microformats due to size. No one has ever said that, as far as I know.
Peace, Scott _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
