> I admit, at some point I did that too, it only takes ~15 lines of Python. Until I realised it becomes a lot bigger than the equivalent image file. I find it

> I admit, at some point I did that too, it only takes ~15 lines of Python. Until I realised it becomes a lot bigger than the equivalent image file. I find it amusing that you realised that only after you wrote the script :-) (not intended to mock you btw) I have to disagree that 'X in pure CSS' renders faster, though. As soon as you use a couple of shadows with sufficient blur radius, a bitmap is much faster (once it's downloaded). I especially notice this when scrolling the page, if there's a lot of shadowed elements on it, it goes clunky. That's NOT saying that you should flatten all CSS trickery to bitmaps, of course, it's still very useful, just that one should take care not to go overboard and keep an eye on performance, especially checking low-powered netbooks and a few different browser/OS combos.