«

in post: <news >
Toby A Inkster <> said:

>> 50 <br /> tags takes up 400 bytes of data.

> 50 <br> tags (assuming HTML rather than XHTML) takes 200 bytes -- not 400.

or 35 bytes using http compression

--
b r u c i e

in post: <news:c4ojg5$2kc87b$>
brucie <****@bruciesusenetshit.info> said:

>> 50 <br> tags (assuming HTML rather than XHTML) takes 200 bytes -- not 400.

> or 35 bytes using http compression

or 32 bytes using http compression and shorttags

--
b r u c i e

DT wrote:

> Of course, a 1x1 pixel gif displayed at a height of 1000 would be even
> smaller......

"Oh Dear," says God "I hadn't thought of that; and prompty vanishes in a
puff of logic.

Toby A Inkster wrote:

> Weyoun the gowd damn Dominion Vorta who certainly didn't dance wrote:
>
>
>>50 <br /> tags takes up 400 bytes of data.
>
>
> 50 <br> tags (assuming HTML rather than XHTML) takes 200 bytes -- not 400.
>
> See the directory listing here:
>
> http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/
>
> Look at the file "50br.html". This is 201 bytes in size (the extra 1 byte
> is for the line break at the end).

I said 50 "<br />" tags not 50 "<br>" tags. I believe tags that don't
have a closing tag: br, hr, img etc, are supposed to now close themselves.


>
>
>>This GIF file, 1000 pixels long, 1 pixel wide, white, is 63 bytes in size.
>>www.dancingborg.co.uk/white.gif
>>
>>Even allowing for:
>>
>><div align="right">
>><img src="images/white.gif" />
>></div>
>>
>>That's 59 bytes of data. In total that's 122 bytes of data. That's 327%
>>more efficient than doing 50 <br />s.
>
>
> Total crap. You're completely ignoring the extra HTTP request for an
> external image file, which would add on about an extra quarter of a KB,
> making the line breaks far more efficient.

thanks. youc ould jsut say "you're wrong" instead of saying "total crap"
but thank you none the less.


>
> Of course, even more efficient would be this:
>
> <p style="height:99em">&nbsp;</p>
>
> Which is 33 bytes. However, the OP seems to have some kind of CSS allergy.
>

Weyoun the gowd damn Dominion Vorta who certainly didn't dance wrote:

> I believe tags that don't
> have a closing tag: br, hr, img etc, are supposed to now close themselves.

In XHTML (and in XML generally) yes, but not in HTML.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

in post: <news:7iUbc.10$>
Weyoun the gowd damn Dominion Vorta who certainly didn't dance
<> said:

> I said 50 "<br />" tags not 50 "<br>" tags.

37 bytes using http compression

--
b r u c i e

DT wrote:
>
> Of course, a 1x1 pixel gif displayed at a height of 1000 would be even
> smaller......


Where can I steal such a file, since I don't know how to make one?

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:57:12 -0400, mcp6453 <> wrote:

> DT wrote:
>>
>> Of course, a 1x1 pixel gif displayed at a height of 1000 would be even
>> smaller......
>
>
> Where can I steal such a file, since I don't know how to make one?


Do you have Microsoft Paint or something else like it? You can make a 1x1
GIF rather easily if you do.

mcp6453 <> wrote:

> DT wrote:
>>
>> Of course, a 1x1 pixel gif displayed at a height of 1000 would be
>> even smaller......
>
>
> Where can I steal such a file, since I don't know how to make one?

Google search:
<http://images.google.com/images?q=1x...n&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&imgsz=icon>

--
David Håsäther