Sure!
On 9/21/2012 12:44 PM, edward eric pedersson wrote:
> Thanks for your response Ben.
> <http://my.domain.com/stylesheet.php?file=/path/to/stylesheet.css>"/>
> I did mean the user-agent caching. I guess I can control this using the
> PHP header output and hope the user-agent respects the header.
>
> Penalties or benefits, depends which way you look at it I guess ;-)
>
> Essentially I need to compare the cost of the two statements below
> assuming a 20K - 50K file
>
> <link rel="stylesheet"
> type="text/css" href="" href="http://my.domain.com/stylesheet.php?file=/path/to/stylesheet.css" target="_blank">http://my.domain.com/stylesheet.php?file=/path/to/stylesheet.css"/>
> <link rel="stylesheet"
> type="text/css"href="" href="http://my.domain.com/path/to/stylesheet.css" target="_blank">http://my.domain.com/path/to/stylesheet.css
>I'll be surprised if anyone is able to provide an authoritative answer
> The first one uses a PHP file to get output compression (as described in
> my previous email - simply loading the file and returning it with
> compression using ob_gzhandler).
> The second does the usual.
>
> All things being equal, which one will load faster?
here. There are a number of factors that contribute to how PHP performs
in a given environment. You may just have to benchmark it.
That said, I suspect that using PHP to gzip the stylesheets will yield a
faster page-load time than not compressing them at all, given the
file-sizes you describe.
Please do share the results if you elect to perform benchmarking. I'm
> I can try and get a few tests running but I will hold off in case anyone
> here knows already.
curious :).
Thanks,
-Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx