2017
Apr
27
awarded  Notable Question
2013
May
14
awarded  Popular Question
2011
Oct
8
awarded  Yearling
May
4
answered Pre-launch Disallow in robots.txt?
Apr
3
answered Why is “mac” disallowed in microsoft.com/robots.txt?
Apr
3
revised SEO preference: does a site with WWW rank better than without WWW?
added 292 characters in body
Apr
3
answered SEO preference: does a site with WWW rank better than without WWW?
2010
Dec
3
comment WWW.example.com or HTTP://example.com – which one is futureproof?
I just want to add about the protocol-less links, its in terms of linking to other sites/resources. If you're doing your own local links you can get away with relative links, ie. /Something. If you're linking to other sites/resources then it can become problematic... (it was 2 AM when I was answering, so I wasn't all there, lol)
Dec
3
answered WWW.example.com or HTTP://example.com – which one is futureproof?
Oct
30
comment What affiliate network would you recommend and why?
Google Affiliate Network which is a subset of Google Adsense. Easy to use from my experience with new publishers added weekly.
Oct
29
comment Google Chrome and Theora
I still don't see where your discrepancy is. It quite literally takes ~10 lines of code to cover Firefox with Theora, Chrome with MP4/WebM, Safari with MP4, Opera with Theora/WebM and a Flash based fall back for IE. And you can write it today and it will work indefinitely for the future. The only possible reason I can see for your reluctance to support all the codecs would be the storage requirements needed and that's a whole other story. Ultimately, if it's a closed system where you know exactly what browser will be used its OK to be limited, but if not you'll have unhappy users...
Oct
28
revised Google Chrome and Theora
added 748 characters in body; added 223 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
Oct
28
answered Google Chrome and Theora
Oct
28
awarded  Commentator
Oct
28
comment Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
@Marco, Lastly, I already corrected my original answer above by stating that <img /> elements can not be rounded with CSS. It seems that you as well did not attempt to understand my answer...
Oct
28
comment Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
@Marco, Furthermore the point of using the sprites is to reduce the requests sent to the server, which is always good, but if you take the exact same images and make them into a sprite you're still sending the same amount of data back to the client, and you still have to add overhead into the CSS with the rounding rules as well as the "slicing/positioning" rules for the sprite.
Oct
28
comment Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
@Marco, I assume by "image map" you're referring to is a sprite? I'm not sure where the "2/4" comes from... Here's the bottom line because you don't seem to understand either. The images are downloaded regardless. Period! Trying to round them with CSS does not reduce the bytes downloaded, it in fact increases it because of the additional rules added to the style sheet for the rounding.
Oct
28
comment Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
@Starx, no offense, but the answer I gave to @Metropolis still stands true and if you would have read and understood it in its entirety you wouldn't have repeated the original question to begin with. I ultimately said that @Metropolis's second option "Adding rounded corners to the image by default and not using the extra css." is the most appropriate and efficient method to use. But, I will admit that I was in error when I assumed that the border-radius will affect <img /> elements as well, it does not.
Oct
28
revised Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
added 100 characters in body
Oct
28
comment Which is faster, adding rounded corners to images, or adding rounded corners in CSS
@Starx, I hope my update above will answer your question.