4 ms·
Some examples here: https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blob/main/examples.md https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blo.
by ks2048 1y ago
Some examples here: https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blob/main/examples.md https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blo...
show significant gain of using dictionary over compressed w/o dictionary.
It seems like instead of sites reducing bloat, they will just shift the bloat to your hard-drive. Some of the examples said dictionary of 1MB which doesn't seem big, but could add up if everyone is doing this.
- sltkr 1y agoThat demonstrates how useless this is. It only shaves off kilobytes on extremely bloated sites that waste megabytes of data. For example, take the CNN example: > The JavaScript was 98% smaller using the previous version as a dictionary for the new version than if the new version was downloaded with brotli alone. Specifically, the 278kb JavaScript was 90kb with brotli alone and 2kb when using brotli and the previous version as a dictionary. Oh wow! 98% savings! That's amazing! Except in absolute terms the difference between 90 KB and 2 KB is only 88 KB. Meanwhile, cnn.com pulls in 63.7 MB of data just on the first page load. So in reality, that 88 KB saved was less than 0.14% of the total data, which is negligible.
- yorwba 1y agoWhat makes you think this would stop working if applied to 63.7 MB of JavaScript instead of just one file?