W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > August 2009

Re: compression of HTML would save a lot of money

From: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:37:30 -0400
To: "FinanzNachrichten.de\, Markus Meister" <markus.meister@finanznachrichten.de>
Cc: <site-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
Message-ID: <nnbd47bw99h.fsf@dev-null.guilds.net>
"FinanzNachrichten.de, Markus Meister"
<markus.meister@finanznachrichten.de> writes:

> I have just noticed that we don't use HTML compression on our W3C website.
> If we would use e.g. GZIP, we could save a lot of traffic and money.

Markus,

Thank you for the suggestion.  We do conditional compression of some of
our most popular resources, for instance a number of our DTDs [1].  It
is conditional based on the client Accept-Encoding request header per
RFC2616 [2].  As noted in this thread some clients and libraries are not
capable of handling this properly so we have no plans to do this more
extensively on W3C's website.

We decided to give compressed DTD content more for improved response
times than bandwidth although there is a dramatic difference there as
well.  Being able to respond faster to the DTD traffic reduces our
server load considerably.

Our present arrangement regarding bandwidth does not have an incremental
cost associated with it but a flat rate so there would be no monetary
savings for W3C.

Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
http://www.w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:37:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:31 GMT