Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Look at those two side by side for a minute, the first
and the third,
and tell me there's no reason to go with the first one if there's
demonstrably no difference in how browsers treat them. Improving
legibility for human readers of our HTML source isn't a *major* goal,
but I don't think we should disregard it entirely, especially when
there are modest size improvements to be had as well. The only reason
I can think of to avoid it other than "leave well enough alone" is for
the sake of screen-scraping bots.
OK, I've looked. I'm certainly no expert in hand editing html, although
I've done more than enough over the years, but I just don't see the
problem that's being solved.
Many/most pages already serve up more than 32K. You're proposing a tiny
savings of fractional percentages in bytes, all so it's more legible to
humans that never actually see it and aren't about to edit this stuff.
You know I've agreed with you more often than not over the years, and
I've never cared much about screen scraping bots after the API worked,
but is this really worth the effort?
I'm of the opinion that compatibility with old browsers is much more
important than human readability.
Do you have copies of W98 and W2K to regression test against?