[screwlewse]

RE: low hanging fruit. It's assumed that you have already done that. Just one more piece of the puzzle. As the test suggests.. it would be good to code in a way that's less bloated, however it's not always going to make a huge difference.

re: zero-impact if cached: I assume you mean visitors that have already downloaded your css from a previous visit? That's been shown to be inaccurate. I also would assume that you have css with far future expires and is zipped, (possibly URI'zed), and on a fast CDN. (not all CDN's are fast). Yet there is no such thing as zero impact. The css still has to be painted on the page and even when cached. If your CSS is 500kb, that could take a long time for a browser to parse CSS.

re: non-semantic class names.. it's a test.. nuf said

re: your ideal site: There't lots I could say here.. besides the fact that IE is still to simpleton to understand most selectors I assume you are speaking of. Also, if you are talking about decendent selectors like I am thinking.. check the Link to Steve Souder's site.. they talk on that. (hint: they're faster)

again, this is assuming you have done all of the other things.. and then some. There is much more you can do before optimizing your css.. but some are at that point. Just because it doesn't apply to you, doesn't mean it isn't an issue to others.. Nor does it mean we should assume there is no issue, without testing and measuring (in order to make sure.)