On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote: > > Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind > > spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web > > standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of > > the Google Search page: > > > > blog entry: > > http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 > > > > example page: > > http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html > > Hey, cool stuff! :) > I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time. > Interestingly, comparing the two pages in > http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ > shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat > that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original) > Hmmm... the javascript isn't there... I wonder if it would add much > weight - I wonder if its reused on other pages. > I don't think the comparision is valid without it. :( > > Lea
Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do people reuse Google throughout the day? If all those users cached the files, we're talking about drastic reductions in Google's bandwidth. It wouldn't be hard at all to lighten the page... but we knew it was a good idea even before the example. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
