I don't remember the specific cases off-hand - but the YUI Compressor has definitely become the de facto standard for compression, at this point, so it seems good to try and standardize behind it.
Also the point concerning the speed of compression and the ease of running it on the server-side still stand. --John On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:25 PM, KidsKilla .grin! wuz here <[email protected]> wrote: > > okay, can you tell me what you mean when saying > "simply worked better and more reliably"? I didn't find any bugs in /packer/ > ... > > i just want to be sure, that my files, minified with packer works fine =)) > > 2009/2/2 John Resig <[email protected]>: >> >> Convenience is certainly one - but in our experience the YUI >> Compressor has simply worked better and more reliably. The fact that >> they provide a JAR file to execute against makes it very simple for us >> to integrate into our development process. >> >> --John >> >> > > -- > Максим Игоревич Гришаев, > AstroStar.ru > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
