X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/a9eb75d1207f7cd5ada02c530cd576c03e48410e..3ae8a75101c88712517294b4ebbb3e4bc68d446d:/doc/todo/concatenating_or_compiling_CSS.mdwn?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/doc/todo/concatenating_or_compiling_CSS.mdwn b/doc/todo/concatenating_or_compiling_CSS.mdwn index e0715e730..068be9398 100644 --- a/doc/todo/concatenating_or_compiling_CSS.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/concatenating_or_compiling_CSS.mdwn @@ -123,3 +123,37 @@ this without that feature initially. > > -- [[Louis|spalax]] +>> One big request is more efficient than lots of small requests, +>> if we model the CSS as all changing equally infrequently. +>> In terms of bytes, each file needs some code in the HTML ``, +>> plus the HTTP request and response headers, plus the actual file. +>> On the first page-view, a visitor will have to download all the CSS anyway +>> (one request/response pair per CSS file). On subsequent page-views, there +>> will be one request/"304 Not Modified" response per CSS file, unless the +>> CSS files can be marked "to be cached forever" (which can be done if +>> they have content-based filenames). +>> +>> In terms of time, [[!wikipedia HTTP_pipelining desc="according to Wikipedia"]] +>> browsers don't generally pipeline requests, so the page won't finish +>> loading until one round-trip time per uncached CSS file has elapsed. +>> +>> Having lots of small files with content-based filenames would be the +>> next best thing - not particularly efficient on a generic web server, +>> but they could at least be marked as "cache forever" in server +>> configuration. I'd be OK with doing that if it makes ikiwiki more +>> maintainable, but I don't think concatenating all the CSS at +>> compile time is actually going to be a problem in practice. +>> The individual small files are still going to be available +>> for the wiki operator to edit. +>> +>> If some CSS files change with a significantly different frequency, +>> *then* it might become worthwhile to separate them, but I don't +>> think that's the case (apart from possibly local.css, which is why +>> I'm not sure whether to include it in this). +>> --smcv + +>>> I must admit that I am not aware of how those several CSS inclusion lines +>>> tend to make browsing less smooth. Please withdraw my comment. +>>> +>>> As you pointed out, CSS inclusion is more painful than it should be, and +>>> your proposal seems to answer that. Go ahead! --[[Louis|spalax]]