4 ms·
267 bytes vs 1026 :) <svg width="100" height="100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path fill="#F60" d="M0 0h100v100H0z"/>
by callumprentice 3y ago
267 bytes vs 1026 :)
<svg width="100" height="100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path fill="#F60" d="M0 0h100v100H0z"/><path d="M50 77V50M73.685 14.377 50 50M26.465 14.449l23.26 35.623" fill="none" stroke="#FFF" stroke-width="8.787"/><path fill="#F60" d="M0 0h100v23.743H0z"/></svg>
- bawolff 3y agoI mean really you should measure it after gzip/brotilli since that is the size that matters.
- callumprentice 3y agoYou're right - still smaller but now 199 vs 448 bytes. Wonder if it can be made any smaller?
- quickthrower2 3y ago<div style=“background-color:orange;color:white;border:1px solid white”>Y</div> ? Disclaimer: from memory and tongue in cheek. May not work!
- layer8 3y agoIt matters client-side in RAM. ;)