News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Pure CSS Twitter Fail Whale.

Re:Pure CSS Twitter Fail Whale by kwamenum86 on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:06PM (#1428733)
A very clever hack. I wonder how much total memory is used versus the image-based version? A couple potential disadvantages: more http requests and more dom nodes. But I'm guessing the author did this just because they could, not as a demonstration of how things should be done.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pure CSS Twitter Fail Whale by thwarted on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:26PM (#1428769)
You mean fewer HTTP requests. The CSS is entirely in the document. So unless you base64 encode the failwhale image and put it in a data: url in an img tag, it's one less request compared to an HTML page containing a single image.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pure CSS Twitter Fail Whale by kwamenum86 on Monday June 14, 2010 @12:15PM (#1430067)
By that logic it is the same number of HTTP requests. Embedding images in the document is trivial at this point.
[ Parent | on HN ]