- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:05:32 +0200
- To: Shlomi Asaf <neoswf@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44A3275C.8060204@students.cs.uu.nl>
Shlomi Asaf schreef: > i shrank the page from 210Kb to 52Kb > i don't use one single HTTP-Request. each HTTP-Request cost 0.2 > seconds. i saved 7 HTTP-Requests, so i saved 1.4 seconds. This is exactly my point. What kind of excessive cruft in class names and presentational elements were on that page that you could reduce the page to a quarter (!!!) of its original size? That means the styling hooks markup outweighed the content at least four-to-one, and probably more! If instead sensible markup would have been used, the page weight could probably have been reduced even more. After all, the ‘class=""’ attribute already adds 8 bytes, and all the <div>s present only for presentational purposes even more. So, do not use <div class="tree red font11px"><div class="something"><div class="something something"><span class="asdlj"><a>The text of the link</a></span></div></div><span class="qq"></span></div> but instead just <ul class="tree navigation"><li><a>The text of the link</a></li></ul>. As you can see in that last example, changing the ‘navigation’ classname to ‘nav’ would have virtually no effect on the total page size. While in the first example, short class names do help a little, but making the markup more sensible would do so even more. Rest assured that I know all about running sites in ‘real’ environments :). I do care about page weight, but shortening class names to the point that they become unreadable is clearly not the best means to achieve that goal. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2006 01:05:44 UTC