[whatwg] The src-N proposal
yoav at yoav.ws
Mon Nov 18 23:49:13 PST 2013
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Racineux <bruno at hexanet.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/13 8:21 PM, "Ilya Grigorik" <igrigorik at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bruno Racineux <bruno at hexanet.net>
> >> Because these (only 0.2% uzing gzip) stats do not look good at all in
> >> support of your theoretical argument:
> >> http://trends.builtwith.com/Server/GZIP-Module
> > That measures "mod_gzip" adoption.
> > HTTP Archive tracks top 300K (Alexa) sites, and the actual number has
> > hovering ~70-75% for a long time:
> > http://httparchive.org/trends.php#perCompressed
> > </aside>
> I suspected I was missing something.
> Though httparchive stats are "number of compressed responses over the
> website coverage. Correct?
My personal experience tells me that the number of "gzipped HTML" is most
probably higher, since most of the non-gzipped text resources I see are JS
& CSS. Besides, if authors are not gzipping their HTML, DRYing the URLs
will be like putting a band-aid on a major carotid artery trauma. (i.e. not
very helpful, even if it makes you feel like you "did something")
In any case, since URL DRYing does not solve any of the use-cases and
doesn't bring any new functionality, this is a tangent concern that IMO
would be best tackled later on, once we'd have actual data on the usage
patterns, and we'd be able to estimate how important DRYing the URLs really
is. (No need to wait for author complaints, as we can crawl sites and look
If you'd like to further discuss that concern, can you please open up a new
thread? This one discusses solutions to the responsive images problem
use-cases (e.g. src-N, picture, srcset, etc)
> I assumed the mod_gzip sits looks at the: 'Content-Encoding:gzip ' header.
> Or what else could it look at?
> Wouldn't this mean that low end site not in the top 300K on Alexa have a
> much higher non-gzipped rate?
More information about the whatwg