Should this stuff be in a FAQ or be made into a uF principle page?
On 10/18/06, Charles Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is is considered better to have longer, easier-to-read, more descriptive, more semantically correct attribute values over shorter, more concise, bandwidth-saving ones? On small pages, a few extra bytes of HTML won't make a big difference, but on very large pages (in terms of markup), all those extra HTML classes and their uF values could pile on the KBs. I would argue that on-the-fly compression of HTML (mod_gzip, mod_deflate, PHP's zlib et al) is mature enough now to be considered a better solution for reducing page size over using shorter uF attributes. I would also argue that longer, more readable attributes are more in keeping with the uF goal of being for humans first, machines second. Here are some pros/cons off the top of my head: Longer attribute pros: More easily readable Less likely to be namespace collisions More sematically correct More precise Longer attribute cons: Uses more bandwidth, especially on larger pages More typing when authoring manually What do others think? -- Charles Roper www.sxbrc.org.uk _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
