61–64 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is pure CSS as explicitly defined on the page, i.e. no images used. Just because you have a different definition doesn’t make it right.
It's not his definition. Pure means "Not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material". Here there is JS mixed, hence it isn't pure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the (real or imaginary) savings of this is not about your hit, is about the hit from the server point of view.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the combined size of an image and its complementary CSS file is less than the size of a 129kb CSS file with "CSS3 images", then don't you essentially lose the benefit of reducing server load?
I just wanted to clarify that the savings the other commenters talk about were taken from the server point of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take the network hit over the CPU hit (and thus battery life). This page is constantly using about 45% of a core on my MBP in Firefox 9.
Sure, but the (real or imaginary) savings of this is not about your hit, is about the hit from the server point of view.