How much can you save?
You need to be logged in to post messages in the forums. New users may register here.
|
Geoff Bentley
Member since:
09 January 2008
Posts: 35
|
Tuesday 31 January 2012 9:18:12 pm
Hi Johan,
Great idea, and I look forward to trying it out. I think it would be helpful to post some extra info about the outcome of this extension (ie, reduce filesize/bandwith) or links to extra info about Data URLs, for those who don't know what this extension does.
One caveat with Data URLs seems to be that you only get the savings on filesize if you use gzip/deflate the CSS+ImageData on the server. I see that you can set the max filesize in settings file - what savings have you experienced? Would be good to put this sort of info in the main documentation too!
Cheers,
Geoff
|
|
|
Johan Beronius
Member since:
08 December 2011
Posts: 1
|
Friday 09 March 2012 5:33:47 pm
There is no decrease in net data volume since base64-encoding only uses 6 bits per character. But the big save is in round-trip time due to fewer number of HTTP-requests. If you count the overhead in headers for each HTTP-request you also save some bytes of data there.
Off course the resulting combined CSS-file is slightly larger but it compresses well and can be cached.
On the website I'm building now we almost halved the number of HTTP-request from ~ 56 to 30 since a lot of the images were small icons less than 2 kB in size.
Your one-stop HTML5 spot for all things Data URL: http://dataurl.net/
|
|
You need to be logged in to post messages in the forums. New users may register here.
