OxygenB

adama · 2009-01-22 02:55:34

Good.

qie · 2009-01-22 05:14:39

i have also keep the original files if anybody needs that just picks a reply ^_^!

Meow · 2009-01-22 12:01:12

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

xable · 2009-01-22 18:01:15

Connor wrote:

Is it really worth it xable, css files are generally cached.

Probably not, some people disable cache but probably not enough to make it worth it. If you insist on cutting the size down though I think it`s a good idea to have the origional available too.

I wouldn`t encourage realeasing a compressed version either, I said that more for the individual who might want to take the route of compressing.

MattF · 2009-01-23 00:46:25

xable wrote:

Connor wrote:
Is it really worth it xable, css files are generally cached.
Probably not, some people disable cache but probably not enough to make it worth it. If you insist on cutting the size down though I think it`s a good idea to have the origional available too.

I wouldn`t encourage realeasing a compressed version either, I said that more for the individual who might want to take the route of compressing.

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.

Meow · 2009-01-23 06:48:46

I've edited. Is that better now?

Last edited by Meow (2009-01-23 06:48:55)

qie · 2009-01-23 13:01:22

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)

xable · 2009-01-23 16:18:17

MattF, I was refering to the benefits of compressing twice (I presume Connor was too) and not the potential space saving, that is obvious, at least for me.

For the few that browse without cache it`s only of benefit if the server isn`t compressing them.

Last edited by xable (2009-01-23 16:24:54)

MattF · 2009-01-23 16:59:48

xable wrote:

MattF, I was refering to the benefits of compressing twice (I presume Connor was too) and not the potential space saving, that is obvious, at least for me.
For the few that browse without cache it`s only of benefit if the server isn`t compressing them.

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)

xable · 2009-01-24 00:32:19

First compression: Removing white space, comments ect.
Second compression: By server.

MattF · 2009-01-24 01:50:29

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)

Meow · 2009-01-24 07:45:14

qie wrote:

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

In 1.3, those links of topics are always bold, instead of a link of the author. So it is not a bug.

By the way, I've fixed a missed line because of an accident.

qie · 2009-01-24 10:45:40

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

Connor · 2009-01-24 10:47:58

xable wrote:

First compression: Removing white space, comments ect.
Second compression: By server.

That doesn't mean it'll be a lot smaller by doing both, if your server compresses files it probably deals with whitespace quite well.

qie · 2009-01-24 11:56:46

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????

Meow · 2009-01-24 12:51:09

qie wrote:

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

But it is an 1.3-like theme.

xable · 2009-01-24 17:34:17

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.

MattF · 2009-01-24 17:57:00

Connor wrote:

xable wrote:
First compression: Removing white space, comments ect.
Second compression: By server.
That doesn't mean it'll be a lot smaller by doing both, if your server compresses files it probably deals with whitespace quite well.

There was no mention of it being a lot smaller. Smaller is smaller, however, whichever way you slice it.

MattF · 2009-01-24 18:00:32

xable wrote:

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).

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.

MattF · 2009-01-24 18:06:01

qie wrote:

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 personally do strip empty lines before outputting the page.

qie · 2009-01-31 08:58:49

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)

Meow · 2009-01-31 09:48:20

It has been fixed, but the right border has been removed. It is difficult to make a whole left panel have its complete right border.

qie · 2009-01-31 12:43:05

Thanks,i would check it.

qie · 2009-02-03 13:03:16

meow,
I'm thinking of this again,
if you do wanna keep the Fluxbb1.3 style of Bold links both with "unread" and "read" links,i'd agree with u.
anyhow if you could give me details of how to changed CSS to make the thread link style to 1.2 style.

i need unread thread link in Bold,but read links with normally link

Last edited by qie (2009-02-03 15:25:29)

Meow · 2009-02-04 06:41:34

div.postleft dt,div.postmsg h4,div.tclcon a,div.forminfo h3,p.postlink,div.linkst li,div.linksb li,div.postlinksb li,.blockmenu li,.pun span.warntext,.pun p.warntext,#brdfooter p.conr a,#adstats dt{font-weight:700}

What you should do is to remove:

div.tclcon a,

Forums

#26 2009-01-22 02:55:34

Re: OxygenB

#27 2009-01-22 05:14:39

Re: OxygenB

#28 2009-01-22 12:01:12

Re: OxygenB

#29 2009-01-22 18:01:15

Re: OxygenB

#30 2009-01-23 00:46:25

Re: OxygenB

#31 2009-01-23 06:48:46

Re: OxygenB

#32 2009-01-23 13:01:22

Re: OxygenB

#33 2009-01-23 16:18:17

Re: OxygenB

#34 2009-01-23 16:59:48

Re: OxygenB

#35 2009-01-24 00:32:19

Re: OxygenB

#36 2009-01-24 01:50:29

Re: OxygenB

#37 2009-01-24 07:45:14

Re: OxygenB

#38 2009-01-24 10:45:40

Re: OxygenB

#39 2009-01-24 10:47:58

Re: OxygenB

#40 2009-01-24 11:56:46

Re: OxygenB

#41 2009-01-24 12:51:09

Re: OxygenB

#42 2009-01-24 17:34:17

Re: OxygenB

#43 2009-01-24 17:57:00

Re: OxygenB

#44 2009-01-24 18:00:32

Re: OxygenB

#45 2009-01-24 18:06:01

Re: OxygenB

#46 2009-01-31 08:58:49

Re: OxygenB

#47 2009-01-31 09:48:20

Re: OxygenB

#48 2009-01-31 12:43:05

Re: OxygenB

#49 2009-02-03 13:03:16

Re: OxygenB

#50 2009-02-04 06:41:34

Re: OxygenB

Board footer