__/ [ John Bokma ] on Saturday 02 September 2006 06:25 \__
> Big Bill <kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> http://www.searchengineguide.com/searchbrief/senews/008222.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> 2 notes: she should talk more with her husband: CSS programmer???
>
> 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.
I can't recall if it was Cutts or DiBona (I searched, but couldn't find it
after a 2-minute effort) who said that Google's broken code is intended to
make pages more compact and thus quick to deliver. This sounds like utter BS
to me because if standards are compromised for speed, then developers will
design for IE just because the majority of people use it. Principles and /ad
hoc/ workarounds that supersede them are unacceptable. Maybe we should also
start throwing bottle out the car's windows. You know, because it's
quicker...
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/1 Fri Sep 1 16:58 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
