[–] jimsteinhart 15y ago ↗ Actually this should be called Img to HTML 3.2 [–] dwwoelfel 15y ago ↗ Hey! I think you're in the wrong place for table-bashing :)There used to be more CSS when I was using unordered lists, but it turns out that tables make for a much smaller file size. [–] pbhjpbhj 15y ago ↗ Indeed, I assumed it was going to be inline base64 encoded background image or something that wasn't being stripped by MUA.It's clever for sure.
[–] dwwoelfel 15y ago ↗ Hey! I think you're in the wrong place for table-bashing :)There used to be more CSS when I was using unordered lists, but it turns out that tables make for a much smaller file size.
[–] pbhjpbhj 15y ago ↗ Indeed, I assumed it was going to be inline base64 encoded background image or something that wasn't being stripped by MUA.It's clever for sure.
[–] dwwoelfel 15y ago ↗ I made this! I'm surprised it wasn't caught by the dup detector -- I just posted it two weeks ago, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2491438.Not that I'm complaining.
4 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 17.6 ms ] threadThere used to be more CSS when I was using unordered lists, but it turns out that tables make for a much smaller file size.
It's clever for sure.
Not that I'm complaining.