cahva wrote:They are not dots, they are 2 pixel wide(or vertically 2 pixels in height) and that makes a difference designwise.
So does screen resolution. Or do you put everything into an 800px-wide box?
Face it: if you want pixel-perfect rendering of every nitpicking little thing (it's just a dotted line for $DEITY's sake) you should stay away from the web.
PS: despite several optimisations (including the obvious two) I couldn't get that dots3.png image down below 98 bytes. Which is still larger than
border-top:1px dotted silver; margin-top:5px; padding-top:10px;
and I'm not going to bust a gut for the sake of coddling something abandoned by its manufacturer and only used by (at a generous estimate) about a third of the browsing audience at the expense of everyone else as long as it doesn't break the page. What's the betting that none of said audience will care that a dotted line was two pixels high instead of one even if they noticed?
67 bytes isn't much. But a separate image file makes it necessary to reserve a connection (Firefox defaults to a maximum of 15 per server), construct an HTTP request, wrap it in an IP packet, wrap that in a TCP packet, wrap that in an Ethernet or PPP or whatever packet, send it out into the network and wait for a similarly-multiply-wrapped packet to come back. The HTTP request alone is probably about the size of this paragraph.