[uf-discuss] Size considerations

[Charles Roper]

Scott Reynen wrote:
> I agree with all of this, but I think a more fundamental issue is that 
> this problem is always presented as a hypothetical, and we shouldn't 
> spend out time trying to solve hypothetical problems.  We know 
> readability is a problem when someone can't understand something.  We'll 
> know size is a problem when someone says they can't implement 
> microformats due to size.  No one has ever said that, as far as I know.

It's hypothetical because not many people are using microformats yet. 
However, we *do* know that people are concerned with file sizes and html 
bloat as this was one of the main selling points of switching to 
tableless CSS designs was that of reducing file size [1].

Javascripters also go to extreme lengths to compress their large 
libraries, often using cryptic variable and object names to shave off a 
few more bytes. The (lack of) size in a js library has become a feature. 
I don't happen agree with the practice of sacrificing readability for 
file size and others seem to agree [2].

[1] http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/
[2] http://tinyurl.com/y2twvy

The thing is, I don't think it's as black or white as saying one 
can/can't implement microformats due to size. Size should be a 
*consideration*, surely, and compromises need to be made. I just think, 
given the balance of pros and cons for longer, more readable, 
attributes, I'd go with longer.

Cheers,

Charles

-- 
Charles Roper
www.charlesroper.co.uk