Hello,
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Probably pointless. It's small enough already that the load time is
going to be latency bound for any user not sitting inside a Wikimedia
data center. On ones which are above the latency bound window (of
roughly 8k), gzipping should get them back under it.
Given that the traffic of wikipedia, every bit should count.
That are no reason to send to inline programming comments to normal user anyway?
The page text is gzipped. CSS/JS are not. Many of the CSS/JS are
small enough that gzipping would not be a significant win (see above)
but I don't recall the reason the the CSS/JS are not. Is there a
client compatibility issue here?
Gzip css/js `should` not bring any compatibility issue to most
browsers, Yahoo! is doing anyway.
Hm. There are expire headers on the skin provided images, but not ones
from upload. It does correctly respond with 304 not modified, but a
not-modified is often as time consuming as sending the image. Firefox
doesn't IMS these objects every time in any case.
Have a simple policy to generate unique URI for each resources, and
expire as far as possible.
Howard