4 ms·
Saving 17% on a the google.com, Facebook.com, and Amazon.com CSS files would make a difference. Now that also depends on what the TCP packet size is. For examp
by cobookman 10y ago
Saving 17% on a the google.com, Facebook.com, and Amazon.com CSS files would make a difference.
Now that also depends on what the TCP packet size is. For example saving 1Byte might not lessen the amount of network traffic needing to be sent.
- quakenul 10y agoI very much doubt 17% before gzip on a already minimized css file would make any meaningful difference, to anyone. Check out the compression example on https://css-tricks.com/the-difference-between-minification-and-gzipping/ https://css-tricks.com/the-difference-between-minification-a...
- underwater 10y agoThis discussion reminds me of this exploration into compressing JSON data. Unless you're considering the final gzipped size you're doing it wrong: "In short, if you try to eliminate redundancy by applying some kind of clever transformation or restructuring your data object before piping it to gzip, you will probably just do a crappy job of reimplementing gzip at the wrong layer of abstraction, and get worse results overall." -- https://github.com/wincent/relay/blob/hack/contrib/lightweight-results/README.md https://github.com/wincent/relay/blob/hack/contrib/lightweig...
- jordanwallwork 10y agoThat's a really good point. A minified that output code directly optimised to gzip efficiently would be a great thing