On 9/28/06, Len Bullard <> wrote:
>
> From: andrew welch [mailto:]
>
> "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.
