Re: compression of HTML would save a lot of money

this is a good idea and easy to change @ Markus

i agree with you and if we save money, i see no reasons why not

> 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,

> FINANZNACHRICHTEN.DE
> Markus Meister

> -------------------------------------------
> http://www.finanznachrichten.de
> Alle News zu Aktien, Börse und Finanzen!!
> -------------------------------------------
> DER SPEKULANT - Der Börsenbrief für clevere Anleger 
> http://www.derspekulant.ch
> -------------------------------------------


Best regards,

SEEKXL.DE
André Nowak

-------------------------------------------
http://www.seekxl.de/
Sorgen Sie dafuer, dass man Sie sucht,
bevor Sie hoffen, dass man Sie findet.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bloggerei.de
News zu Blogs und Blogosphaere
-------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 21:14:35 UTC