7 ms·
Sure, but the (real or imaginary) savings of this is not about your hit, is about the hit from the server point of view.
by dextorious 15y ago
Sure, but the (real or imaginary) savings of this is not about your hit, is about the hit from the server point of view.
- atarian 15y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but if the combined size of an image and its complementary CSS file is less than the size of a 129kb CSS file with "CSS3 images", then don't you essentially lose the benefit of reducing server load?
- dextorious 15y agoSure. That's why I added the "imaginary" qualifier to the savings. I just wanted to clarify that the savings the other commenters talk about were taken from the server point of you.
- nirvdrum 15y agoI'm not sure I want someone working on a front-end component trying to optimize for a back-end process without realizing the full impact of these front-end changes. I'm assuming/hoping in this case it's just a "hey, this is something fun I did."