W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: Performance implications of Bundling and Minification on HTTP/1.1

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:49:35 +0000
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3605BA99C081B54EA9B65B3E33316AF7346FFBD5@CH1PRD0310MB392.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Patrick,

Bjoern asked a similar question and so I computed the "just concatenation plus compression" numbers listed in [1] but included here for convenience:

Compressing 6 CSS individually:               77495 bytes
Compressing the minified CSS bundle:    69803 bytes
Compression the 6 concatenated files:  75230 bytes

The size difference is still noticeable (75230 - 69803 = 5427 bytes):

Henrik

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012AprJun/0785.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McManus [mailto:pmcmanus@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 05:29
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Performance implications of Bundling and Minification on HTTP/1.1

On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:12 +0000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> Patrick,

Thanks Henrik,

I was just trying to tease out the byte savings of minification, vs bundling, vs compression in all of their combinations which the blog post didn't get into.. 


> Are you thinking of externalizing the compression dictionary and reuse it across resources? 

It's a possibility to consider - that's all. SPDY already does it with headers. I could imagine having a small set of dictionaries for different classes of content (headers, markup, etc..).. I'm not advocating that here, just trying to scrounge info from your data points :)






Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 14:50:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 June 2012 14:51:04 GMT