Quentin said the following on 19/09/2004 22:14:

[snip]
> Actually, i AM using 1*1 gifs that are less than 100 bytes. It does
> not make a difference to users to have 100 more bytes to download on
> each page when those pages are generally more like 30kB-50kB even

That's not a fair comparison, since that 30-50 KB will be cached. If a
user of those sites goed back to a page which was already visisted, the
image would still have to be downloaded.

But is a 1x1 gif without color 100 bytes? I don't know much about
pictures, but it sounds still to much to me.

> without the images... Plus the gifs are generally put on the bottom of
> the page, which makes sure that the user can actually see the content
> even when it's getting downloaded.

But they still have to download it. It might not be much, but I still
don't like it.

>>Just find another solution to your problem, don't try to change how
>>parts of the internet are supposed to work.
>
> I'm sorry but i disagree with this. The internet is not "supposed to
> work" in a single way. Of yourse it's better to have regular images
> cached, but it makes a stats service much less useful if they are than
> if they are not. The standard defines the way to tell the browser
> *how* to cache images for some time *or* not to cache them, it doesn't
> tell that you *must* cache them.

That's the problem with stat services. Like I said, the stats can be
generated from their logs, there's no need for the image, except that
you would be out off business. The standards certainly doesn't define
that stat services should disable cache on pic's.

[snip]

--
Regards
Harrie