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

AW: compression of HTML would save a lot of money

From: FinanzNachrichten.de, Markus Meister <markus.meister@finanznachrichten.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:24:07 +0200
To: "'Rotan Hanrahan'" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, <site-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020401ca14f6$1549d130$3fdd7390$@meister@finanznachrichten.de>
Good hint, Rotan.
I just had a look at the traffic stats of our media.
Last month we had 0,06 % of the traffic with IE5.5 and a total of 0,05 %
with IE5/IE5.01/IE5.14 and older versions of IE.
That's in total around 0,11 %.

Sounds tough, but I would prefer to 'motivate' this 1 out of 1000 users to
update his browser ...


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Rotan Hanrahan
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. August 2009 12:48
An: FinanzNachrichten.de, Markus Meister; site-comments@w3.org;
Betreff: RE: compression of HTML would save a lot of money

Not all browsers support gzip, mainly older ones. Some browsers that claim
to support gzip have bugs (e.g. IE5.5 without the hotfix) that cause page
loading to fail or worse. The W3C server would therefore have to "sniff" the
requests to avoid causing problems for a subset of the global community. I'm
not sure if the hotfix can be detected in a HTTP request so we'd have to
take the safest line and not deliver gzip to any of these browsers, fixed or
otherwise. Even some of the newer browsers have problems with gzip.

Compression would also increase the processing overhead a little, though
caching could help here.

So, while I think the proposal has merit, we need to be cautious that we
don't detach a portion of the world who are struggling with old and/or buggy
browser implementations. W3C is global, after all.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ac-forum-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of FinanzNachrichten.de, Markus Meister
Sent: 04 August 2009 11:29
To: site-comments@w3.org; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org
Subject: compression of HTML would save a lot of money

Dear Ian,

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.

3 examples:

http://www.w3.org/       46 kB
http://lists.w3.org/    227 kB
http://validator.w3.org/ 27 kB

I have just put these three html files on our test server and the result
confirmed that if we would deliver compressed files, the size would somewhat
smaller and we could reduce our costs by saving cash:

* homepage compressed:          14 kB (-70 % traffic)
* lists homepage compressed:    23 kB (-90 % traffic)
* validator homepage compressed: 5 kB (-81 % traffic)

Looking at our financial situation, it would be phantastic if you could
reduce our traffic expenses by maybe -50 % (graphics would not be concerned
by a compression).

If there are no 'political' reasons why it's not possible for us to use
compression, please check this idea with the server responsible.
When the traffic numbers are still around the same as last year (when I
proposed advertising to increase our revenues) I would guess that we could
save as much traffic costs that we economize a 5 digit Euro/USD amount per
year with compression.

Best regards,

Markus Meister

Alle News zu Aktien, Börse und Finanzen!!
DER SPEKULANT - Der Börsenbrief für clevere Anleger 
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 11:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 18 April 2022 20:33:47 UTC