Michael L. Davis wrote:
> The 'write-chunk(16284)' looks like it is trying to do something - but
> FireBug and that website that sends HEAD instead of GET both report 53K.
> If someone can convince me that FireBug is just plain wrong (tho it
> correctly reports on Windows XP) ...
I've never seen a case where FireBug reported incorrect headers (and I
can't imagine where it would get them) but you can use a packet capture
and analysis tool, which also works across all browsers, if you want to
> OK. Maybe FireBug et. al. ARE wrong. I opened a fresh FireFox window
> over dialup and it took 27 seconds (a page refresh then took 2 seconds)
> , 1/3 the time that the websiteoptimization.com site said it should and
> 1/2 the time a back-of-the-envelope calculation indicated. And given
> that the JS is most of the bytes going over the line, I now think that
> it IS being compressed but incorrectly reported on.
Dial-up modems transparently compress the data stream so you can't make
resin-interest mailing list