1) These differences are almost completely negligible. 1K off of a 153K page? Totally not worth it. You'd get far more benefit by removing just 1 image from your page.
2) Just use gzip. I know the web purists will immediately jump to the whole "some browsers don't support it" argument. Even IE 4.0+ supports it so trust me -- anyone going to your website is going to have a browser that supports it, so stick to a more practical solution.
Ye, using gzip is a better idea. It works really well for text based stuff. Once it's compressed it also doesn't really matter if it's "d", "div", or "thatContainerThingyFromHtmlFormerlyKnownAsDiv".
And older browsers... well, just use mod_rewrite or mod_negotiate and serve the requested flavor. I recently started to gzip my aggregated JS and CSS files (everything else was already gzipped or otherwise compressed) and it does indeed help a lot if you want to improve loading times/reduce traffic. That small change alone saves about 34% if a typical post is served.
The total saved percentage by using GZip and PNGOUT (or other PNG recompression utilities like OptiPNG) for a typical blog entry is about... lets see... 55-60%. And aggregation gets rid of about 4-8 additional HTTP requests.
Whenever you optimize something grab those low hanging fruits with the most effect first. The first 80% towards the perfect solution are usually quickly reached. And in most cases it's already good enough then. Or - if you're lucky - even far better than expected.
Just do yourself a favor and skip everything that remotely looks like a micro optimization. Most likely these 0.1% won't matter yet and probably they never will. Write it down and move on to the high level options. There is so much more to gain there.
It may be negligible for a single page, but imagine you were server millions and millions of uncached pages per hour, 1k is going to save you a lot of time and energy.
Anyway it was only an idea, there are much better ways to improve the speed of your website! I'm just saying what's the point of the 2 extra characters when we don't really need them.
,
The focus should instead be on identifying ways one can replace the generic, over-used div tag with markup which would indicate structure and/or hierarchy within the document.
Comments
Rob Signorelli replied ago:
No....
1) These differences are almost completely negligible. 1K off of a 153K page? Totally not worth it. You'd get far more benefit by removing just 1 image from your page.
2) Just use gzip. I know the web purists will immediately jump to the whole "some browsers don't support it" argument. Even IE 4.0+ supports it so trust me -- anyone going to your website is going to have a browser that supports it, so stick to a more practical solution.
amphi replied ago:
Ye, using gzip is a better idea. It works really well for text based stuff. Once it's compressed it also doesn't really matter if it's "d", "div", or "thatContainerThingyFromHtmlFormerlyKnownAsDiv".
And older browsers... well, just use mod_rewrite or mod_negotiate and serve the requested flavor. I recently started to gzip my aggregated JS and CSS files (everything else was already gzipped or otherwise compressed) and it does indeed help a lot if you want to improve loading times/reduce traffic. That small change alone saves about 34% if a typical post is served.
See:
http://kaioa.com/node/78
The total saved percentage by using GZip and PNGOUT (or other PNG recompression utilities like OptiPNG) for a typical blog entry is about... lets see... 55-60%. And aggregation gets rid of about 4-8 additional HTTP requests.
Whenever you optimize something grab those low hanging fruits with the most effect first. The first 80% towards the perfect solution are usually quickly reached. And in most cases it's already good enough then. Or - if you're lucky - even far better than expected.
Just do yourself a favor and skip everything that remotely looks like a micro optimization. Most likely these 0.1% won't matter yet and probably they never will. Write it down and move on to the high level options. There is so much more to gain there.
dtsn replied ago:
It may be negligible for a single page, but imagine you were server millions and millions of uncached pages per hour, 1k is going to save you a lot of time and energy.
Anyway it was only an idea, there are much better ways to improve the speed of your website! I'm just saying what's the point of the 2 extra characters when we don't really need them.
,
sigzero replied ago:
READABILITY. Your brain will halt every time it sees "d" and tries to figure out the context of what "d" means.
easykill replied ago:
The focus should instead be on identifying ways one can replace the generic, over-used div tag with markup which would indicate structure and/or hierarchy within the document.
Voters For This Link (8)
Voters Against This Link (8)