[ale] CSS hell

[Jim Popovitch]

For starters, please don't use reply-all.  I am already subscribed to
the list, I don't need two copies of the same thing.

All those extra css tags, just to implement an list of urls.  I suppose
that it has it's merits, but the way most people implement it is a big
waste the viewer's time.  Consider this: a company creates the website:
www.bigcompany.com and decide to define all their neat-o wow styles in
bigcompany.css.  Next month they create a targeted promotion at
www.bigcompany.com/special-offer and they add a bunch more styles to
bigcompany.css (yes, you and I know that they should have multiple .css
files... but the truth is most don't).  Next month they create an
intranet portal for their employees.... guess where they put the styles
for the ultra cool fonts used on their intranet?  Now the real waste is
not necessarily in all those extra bits, it may be in the extra
processing it takes <insert_favorite_bloated_browser_name_here> to
repeatedly process (and re-process) bigcompany.css when only 2 or 3
styles might ever be needed by the end-user.

If you want to test this, use the css validator on w3.org, so far I've
only seen Yahoo! pass. :)

-Jim P.

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 11:43, Christopher R. Curzio wrote:
> Err... What? Are you looking at the same thing I'm viewing? My solution
> actually removed more data than it added, and I didn't modify a single
> HTML tag.
> 
> What "extra messy" html are you talking about?