On 1/16/15 2:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 1/16/15 5:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/16/15 1:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I don't care how much of the overall bandwidth it is, what I was asking
>>> is how much does the file shrink if you minify.
>>
>> 30% -- ANDREI
>
> so d-minified.css.gz is 30% smaller than d.css.gz? Just want to clarify.

No, I didn't do any compression. Please do it and beat me over the head with your pull request. -- Andrei

On 1/16/15 2:26 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 22:17:51 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 1/16/15 5:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 1/16/15 1:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> I don't care how much of the overall bandwidth it is, what I was asking
>>>> is how much does the file shrink if you minify.
>>>
>>> 30% -- ANDREI
>>
>> so d-minified.css.gz is 30% smaller than d.css.gz? Just want to clarify.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>                Original  Minified
> Uncompressed    16028     11959
> gzip -9          4252      3194
>
> Looks closer to 25%, but same ballpark.

So then the two optimizations don't compete. I hate it when I'm right :o). -- Andrei

On 1/16/15 5:23 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/16/15 1:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On an embedded product we have with a dead-simple web server, there is
>> terrible network performance. Adding gzip support saved way more than
>> minification ever could. But the best performance improvement was to add
>> caching support to the server. Both the browser and the server have to
>> cooperate there.
>
> Pretty cool. The problem I'm having right now is the following pattern:
>
> 1. I have a mini-idea that takes me minutes to implement and turns the
> ratchet in the right direction.

At the cost of adding dependencies for builds, and requiring builds be done with Internet access. I don't think it's out of line to ask that if we are going to add extra build requirements, we should make sure it's really making decent progress.

> 2. I post it here in the hope that others will build upon or come with
> better ideas.
>
> 3. I get feedback here that essentially demonstrates me that if I spent
> some hours or days on a small research project on a better idea, it
> would yield better results.

I think you misunderstand. We are not saying "do a research project", it takes seconds to gzip 2 files (the minified and not minified) and see the size difference. If it's super-significant, let's go for it! If you send me the minified file, I can test it for you.

There doesn't need to be any research, but all the suggestions that have been provided have NOT required extra tools or dependencies. That is a significant difference.

-Steve

On 1/16/15 5:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/16/15 2:26 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 22:17:51 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On 1/16/15 5:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/15 1:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> I don't care how much of the overall bandwidth it is, what I was
>>>>> asking
>>>>> is how much does the file shrink if you minify.
>>>>
>>>> 30% -- ANDREI
>>>
>>> so d-minified.css.gz is 30% smaller than d.css.gz? Just want to clarify.
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>>                Original  Minified
>> Uncompressed    16028     11959
>> gzip -9          4252      3194
>>
>> Looks closer to 25%, but same ballpark.
>
> So then the two optimizations don't compete. I hate it when I'm right
> :o). -- Andrei

If the CSS isn't frequently changing, a 4kb file should not comprise 5% of all traffic if caching is enabled.

I certainly think this is well worth the optimization, though, 25% is a good improvement.

-Steve

On 1/16/15 2:32 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstand. We are not saying "do a research project", it
> takes seconds to gzip 2 files (the minified and not minified) and see
> the size difference. If it's super-significant, let's go for it! If you
> send me the minified file, I can test it for you.
>
> There doesn't need to be any research, but all the suggestions that have
> been provided have NOT required extra tools or dependencies. That is a
> significant difference.

The more involved part is figuring out what support is out there for compressed transfers, configuring the site, etc. --- Andrei

On 1/16/15 2:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> If the CSS isn't frequently changing, a 4kb file should not comprise 5%
> of all traffic if caching is enabled.

May be a sign we have lots of new visitors :o). -- Andrei

On 1/16/15 5:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/16/15 2:32 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> I think you misunderstand. We are not saying "do a research project", it
>> takes seconds to gzip 2 files (the minified and not minified) and see
>> the size difference. If it's super-significant, let's go for it! If you
>> send me the minified file, I can test it for you.
>>
>> There doesn't need to be any research, but all the suggestions that have
>> been provided have NOT required extra tools or dependencies. That is a
>> significant difference.
>
> The more involved part is figuring out what support is out there for
> compressed transfers, configuring the site, etc. --- Andrei
>

Right, I understand. I'm not in a position to actually make those changes or support those servers, so I'll shut up.

I was just saying my experience with what works and what doesn't with optimizing web traffic.

-Steve

On 17/01/2015 6:40 a.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I just added
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/770, which
> generates minified css files. This is because in the near future css
> files will become heftier (more documentation comments, more detailed
> styles etc).
>
> The disadvantage is that now one needs to be online to generate
> documentation. Thoughts?
>
>
> Andrei

For reference, Cmsed has a port of a css/javascript minifier.
Feel free to extract it (its a subpackage so pretty easy).
In fact I believe its one file.

On 1/16/15 6:39 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 17/01/2015 6:40 a.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I just added
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/770, which
>> generates minified css files. This is because in the near future css
>> files will become heftier (more documentation comments, more detailed
>> styles etc).
>>
>> The disadvantage is that now one needs to be online to generate
>> documentation. Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> For reference, Cmsed has a port of a css/javascript minifier.
> Feel free to extract it (its a subpackage so pretty easy).
> In fact I believe its one file.

Just googled it. For further reading: https://github.com/rikkimax/Cmsed

-Steve

On 2015-01-16 22:32, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

> That's probably because HTTP caching is not configured.
>
> Ideally, you'd put the file's modification time in its path, e.g.:
>
> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/1421443851/style.css" />

Or a hash of the file content in the filename.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg