On 12/10/05, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel you are forgetting a number of things. > > - Response times: > - Hidden bandwidth consumption: > - Obvious bandwidth consumption: >
See Rimantas' version... I think you are focusing too much on the specific implementation of standards, and not the simple fact that if Google used standards, they would save a lot. At least Rimantas thought ahead and solved these problems by putting the CSS in the header, but let's not all bash Matt for not doing that. Also see my post on GIF vs. PNG. > - Localisation: > Google has within all probability made their pages so that minimal > changes are required even to languages and scripts considerably > different from English. This has to be considered for any remake with > semantical markup, including the issue of the next point. > What? I would rather modify the standards version than the original. The original uses tables, which means you have to add TD's every time you want to add another link, which are much heavier than adding LI's. Also, the standards version allows the Google codemonkeys to cut and paste the CSS, and then just edit the markup to reflect the language/localisation. > - Serialisation: > Not only do we want our content to be laid out the same in CSS and > JavaScript enabled browsers. We also want to retain the current > layout/serialisation for the content in browsers with bad or no CSS > support, with terminal window textual browsers, screen readers or > braille interfaces. Google may throw ugly code at us, but it isn't > inaccessible as it is. This includes things such as not laying the > Web/Images/Groups... out as a horizontal list instead of a single line > when you have no CSS support. > Huh? The bottom line is saving money, accessibility or serialisation is not so important. I would say it serializes just fine in the standards version anyway. > - Dynamic elements: > Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or > not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in > consideration. How? What does that have to do with it? -- -- 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 ******************************************************
