[uf-discuss] Size considerations
bewest at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 10:02:00 PDT 2006
Should this stuff be in a FAQ or be made into a uF principle page?
On 10/18/06, Charles Roper <charles.roper at gmail.com> 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
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss