OxygenB 1.0.9 (Page 2 of 4)

Don't spread it. Your original file is old, but mine is the latest.

I'd say quite the opposite regarding the subject. Having the original files as is, that point is obvious. The whole point of the original is readability and ease of editing. Cutting out all the comments and blank lines before compressing and serving them, however, can make a significant saving before server compression even takes place, so you are technically gaining twice. For example, compare these two files. They are the original, former, and the minimised, latter, versions:

http://forums.bauchan.org/devforum/styl … s/blue.css
http://forums.bauchan.org/devforum/styl … t_blue.css

Btw, I do have a regex to tweak there to stop it being quite so draconian on what it strips.

new bug comes.

>>
      when you login with a user, click a forum, there is topic links.      the new topic you haven't viewed should be "bold" link,the old topic you have read before should be "light" link,but there is no difference now.

keeps going with it.dude

Last edited by qie (2009-01-23 14:19:48)

The files aren't being compressed twice. They are being compressed once by the server. Reducing a files size is completely different to compressing a file. Nowhere in this thread has there been any reference to compressing, (in the true sense of the term), the file twice. With or without browser caching, a size reduction is a size reduction. That online page that Meow linked to doesn't compress a file. It removes needless space, comments and suchlike. The compression occurs at the server level alone.

Edit: Unless, of course, I have completely misinterpreted what you were inferring when you mentioned heavily 'compressing' a file?

Last edited by MattF (2009-01-23 17:02:40)

I had understood correctly then. Granted, it may only be, for example, a 1000< byte difference after both processes have been applied, but average that over, say, a thousand downloads, and those bytes start to add up. An extra bit of optimisation can't usually go amiss, even if it is only a small gain.

Btw, just for reference, here's a link to a script for achieving comment and space stripping and such:

http://csstidy.sourceforge.net/index.php

Edit: It would appear that it also cleans up general CSS coding errors, judging by the description.

Last edited by MattF (2009-01-24 01:53:21)

-_-! it should be nice with that difference,we r using 1.2.

compress CSS file is meaningless. if you do compress CSS file kick it's space comments and so on,why you don't compress every php every template file so that there isn't blank comments and so on,so the server would parse the php more quick????

I`ll try to explain myself better in future, I think there has been some confusion here but hopefully I can clear it up here.

My origional post was just to point out that linking to an uncompressed version is a good idea to keep it useable for everyone, not just the origional file holder.

I`m not disputing the fact that manually compressing CSS can significantly reduce the size, that`s the whole point of doing it in the first place. I`m saying that it`s not worth the effort as the only time manual compression offers a worthy benifit is when the server doesn`t do any compressing (not that often).

Of course every little helps but if the server is compressing it already then the gain is so little it`s not really worth the effort.

If the compression is automatic, however, there's no effort involved.

In truth, it's notable just how many sites don't actually seem to compress their content.

Meow plz check this :

there got grey block i don't know what is that,the right side of the profile zone not neat...

Last edited by qie (2009-01-31 09:08:13)

Thanks,i would check it.