4 ms·
Unfortunately I think a lot of the points in this article are lost if you assume that the CDN's serving up the TTF for FontAwesome are using GZIP compression.
by jstapels 10y ago
Unfortunately I think a lot of the points in this article are lost if you assume that the CDN's serving up the TTF for FontAwesome are using GZIP compression.
- chrisan 10y agoI was curious and checked out FA's CDN https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/FontAwesome.otf https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/FontAwesom... and the rest of the fonts as https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.* https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/fontawesom... (not sure why they name the OTF differently) otf 110KB eot 102KB svg 157KB ttf 102KB woff 96.1KB woff2 75.8KB All appear to be using gzip in headers
- hmottestad 10y agoOn my machine, the otf version uses much less bandwidth. From 52.4 kb to 16.4.
- chrisan 10y agoI'm getting the same results in Chrome using mac, win10, or ubuntu. Are you using the same URLs I posted?
- hmottestad 10y agohttp://imgur.com/a/acTMh http://imgur.com/a/acTMh
- chrisan 10y agoWell I'm stumped. Would love to know how we are getting different results, and how your results (16KB) are _so_ much better than mine (110KB) Here is a codepen if someone else wants to try OTF results http://codepen.io/anon/pen/gLjLMv http://codepen.io/anon/pen/gLjLMv
- eriknstr 10y agoOpening the link you provided above with Firefox and bringing up network motior, I get the same as you; 109.18 KB "transferred", 131.65 KB "size", and gzip was used according to headers. I thought that maybe "transferred" might be the size of the data after decompression, and "size" would be "transferred" plus headers, but then I checked Chromium and I see 110 KB there as well. It seems very strange that the size reported by the parent is varying. Why would it do that? Are they all the same file or different ones?