[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XHTML quicker ?
From: |
Davi Leal |
Subject: |
Re: XHTML quicker ? |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:27:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
Victor Engmark wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > making it slow to parse,
> > What is a millisecond more?
>
> If you're willing to build a site with the goal of having hundreds or
> thousands of users with that attitude, this discussion is moot. Besides,
> I'm not talking about milliseconds. The fastest I could get the GNU Herds
> front page <https://www.gnuherds.org/> to load, in beta, on a Sunday
> evening, is 0.765 seconds (measured with Fasterfox, after reloading some 20
> times). That page doesn't even use any (non-trivial) JavaScript. The Update
> person data<https://www.gnuherds.org/Person.php>page was even slower - I
> couldn't get it below 2 seconds. Unless the code
> scales brilliantly (leaving the browser as the only bottleneck), you'll
> lose a lot of potential users.
Well, I agree with you it is good idea to try XHTML, and compare it with
others options.
Davi
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS -- Later XHTML if convenient?, (continued)
- Re: HTML vs XHTML, MJ Ray, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: HTML 4.01 Strict + CSS, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, David Paleino, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: The CVS branch is right, Davi Leal, 2007/02/25
- Re: CVS branch for XHTML ?, Victor Engmark, 2007/02/25
- Re: XHTML quicker ?,
Davi Leal <=