Aaaaaand, into my killfile you go.
In article <3b549d8e$1$9434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Roland M�sl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Adam Sj�gren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:56:19 +0200, Roland M�sl wrote:
> >
> > > I have per page about 20 <DIV with top left width height
> >
> > > px are 2 byte more times 20 DIV time 4 times used.
> >
> > > I will not waste 160 byte bandwith per page, only because some
> > > people can not think on a usefull default.
> >
> > > 160 bytes per page are at 200.000 page views per month 32 MB wasted
> > > bandwith
> >
> > If you changed "left" to "l", "right" to "r", "width" to "w" and
> > "height" to "h", you would be saving 20*16 bytes per page!
> >
> > If you're worried about such small potatoes, why not configure your
> > webserver to gzip the pages for browsers that support that (many
> > (most?) do)?
> >
> > Saving bandwidth is definately not a valid argument for breaking the
> > standards.
>
> You brought me on a great idea to increase download speed!
>
> <div id=desc style="position:absolute;left:8;top:410;width:600;height:1;">
> <script
> language=JavaScript>m("desc",0,400,0,110,160,150,340,30,200,130,0,30,600,1)
> </script>
>
> Is my current code for every DIV Block.
>
> About 20 of them used for a page.
>
> I could reduce to
> <div id=desc>
> <script
> language=JavaScript>m("desc",0,400,0,110,160,150,340,30,200,130,0,30,600,1)
> </script>
>
> Only disadvantage:
>
> All who switched off Javascript or have an
> V4 browser would see no layout any more.
>
> So I will do this maybe at christmas when Netscape 4
> is down to 2% and not worth to waste for the
> few users to lazy to upgrade about 1 Kb bandwith
> per page any more.
>
>
>
> --
> Roland M�sl
> http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
> http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine
>
>
>
>
>
