__/ [ Big Bill ] on Saturday 02 September 2006 17:59 \__
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:29:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>__/ [ Borek ] on Saturday 02 September 2006 09:19 \__
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:25:54 +0200, John Bokma <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> second note: 4 944 vs 3 902 sounds like quite a saving. The problem is
>>>> that nowadays quite some site send out their HTML compressed (gzip), and
>>>> it might very well be the case that the former is smaller then the
>>>> latter.
>>>>
>>>> But Google *should* have a serious look at their HTML, I agree on that
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> Google is a bunch of morons when it comes to HTML. Look at their page -
>>> they for ages use one-letter ids (two years at least IIRC) to make the
>>> code shorter and to save on bandwidth, but they can't understand that
>>> they can save huge properly using css. That's an old news for some.
>>
>>Very sad news, too. To elaborate on my other post, this sets
>>a terrible examples for Webmasters (think along the lines
>>of: "well, even Google don't make it valid, so why should
>>/I/?"). What's more, how are newer and less mature browsers
>>supposed to cope with attributes that intentionally neglect
>>quotes/apostrophes? Isn't that what
>>specification/standards/recommendations are for? Equality
>>and independence on a product? That which doesn't involve
>>hacks, workarounds and undocumented exception handling? What
>>about OpenDocument? I am glad that Google don't have a go at
>>making /that/ 'efficient'... I am worried that Google is
>>beginning to adopt Microsoft's habits of 'extending'
>>standards to suit their own convenience and agenda
>>(compromising for speed in that case). Microsoft Office
>>formats, for example, use binary because it's quicker than
>>XML or a well-structured and easily interpertable
>>(backward-'engineerable') form, among other reasons.
>
> I hope you didn't mention that at your interviews... :-)
I already have too much ani-Google material on the Web. So they might as well
accept that. I refuted the claim that Google was inovate because, just like
Microsoft, most technologies are inhereited through (potentially-hostile)
acquisitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acquisitions_by_Google
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_acquired_by_Microsoft_Corporation
Oracle is worse.
|
|
