bandwidth savings of 5%, 10%, or 20% on a
THOUSAND (1000) page website makes
a big difference.
- Almost all 1000 page websites connect to
a database anyway. Anything
that "big" had better have something
worth going to and that means data that's worth
storing in a database.
The ESPN Interview
First, CSS elitists don't even
have the web traffic to come even
near 5% of their very own ISP's monthly bandwidth
allocation. And that's for their ISP's most
basic and cheapest web hosting plan. (That's
one of the reasons why these ISP's can host
hundreds of websites on a single server.)
Second, if these CSS elitists did have
enough web pages to justify
the bandwidth savings, they would be connected
to a database anyway to at least produce some
of those 1000 pages, which means they are
better off using tables for that tabular data.
So just these 2 points above means a
WHAMMY and Catch-22 on the CSS
There are "so-called statistics" of
2 terabytes saved on the ESPN
Article. However, If you read closely
(like PAGE 2), you can easily infer that
they used lots of <FONT> tags
before and thus were most likely using that number in their statistics of 2 terabytes
it's as if they didn't use a CSS page or styles whatsoever; at least not consistently.
So, as you can see, this number, 2 terabytes of data savings can be easily manipulated.
NOTE: even ESPN doesn't like some of the
solutions. See quote on page 2, about the 13th
paragraph down: "...This solution works
fine for now but it does not exactly put a smile
on my face. ". If you read only the
first page of the article, you would think CSS
is best thing since sliced bread, but continue
reading to page 2 and you see lots of disadvantages...sort
of like a 10-K annual report of an Enron or a