Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 9/28/06, Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> wrote: > > From: andrew welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@g...] > > "All inbound-linking systems that scale out of some boundary share > that characteristic without filtering controls." > > >I could quote some more but the entire paragraph makes for impossible > >reading. The points you make could change my opinion, you could be > >saying absolute gold - I just can't distill it down into something > >comprehensible. > > Spend some time in the library learning about second order systems. In your > mode of learning, you can only understand what you already know. Or you > might want to read some recent posts others are making about the silliness > of basing opinions on Google ranking. Here's a recent one: I didn't base any opinion on Google ranking - I merely pasted in "false eigen-index locking" to find out what you were going on about. As it only returned _3_ results, none with those words in that order, I got annoyed that I wasted my time trying to understand your point. > >I guess its time I went back to quietly ignoring your posts > > Ok, just do it quietly. Will do after this :) > >> 2. Adding more semantics to CSS bloats the browser. > >> 3. Bloating the browser may be a good tradeoff if authors are more > >> productive or interoperability improves. The first is likely but the > >> second is not. > > >Thats subjective isn't it? > > And attaching linking semantics in a CSS declaration is somehow more > objective? *Yes* - of course it is. Its tangible, Len. Whether adding to CSS bloats the browser or not is purely opinion. Even if was possible to measure "bloatiness", and having a simple linking functionality in CSS somehow tipped a browser over the allowed amount of bloat, thats no reason to not consider it. Let me be clear I'm not arguing for or against links in CSS - I'm arguing that your points were nonsense. Sorry Len.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
