On 1/20/12 8:45 AM, Jarvis, Matthew wrote:
> Or was Paul not joking like I thought he was when he mentioned the ASCII
> values being higher/lower than the other?
I was joking.
However, since then I've looked at the bit settings of the ascii values, and at
first
glance there do appear to be more
I'd like to throw in another aspect to this discussion.
Some may be thinking "2%! What's the big deal." However, if your web
site is in an ultra competitive industry, now that Google ranks sites on
how fast they load, a 2% decrease in web size may give you an edge over
a competitor that isn't
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jarvis, Matthew wrote:
> I guess I just don't get it
>
> If I was consistent w/ my tags being uppercase, why wouldn't it be the
> same compression size as if using all lowercase?? If it's found the
> value, it's found the value and doesn't have to have anothe
> I don't know if the results of this article are true or not, but
here's
> what I found when Googling:
> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/lowercase/
>
I guess I just don't get it
If I was consistent w/ my tags being uppercase, why wouldn't it be the
same compression size as if
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Kevin Cully
wrote:
> I don't know if the results of this article are true or not, but here's
> what I found when Googling:
> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/lowercase/
Single percentage point performance differences may not be all that
noticeable.
I don't know if the results of this article are true or not, but here's
what I found when Googling:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/lowercase/
On 01/19/2012 05:58 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> Aaah...now THAT makes sense! hahaha
>
>
___
On 1/19/2012 5:54 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
> Joking aside, I bet that it doesn't come to lower case versus upper case, but
> rather
> consistent case versus inconsistent case. IOW, pick either upper or lower,
> and stick
> with it consistently. That way the compression algorithm has more redundant
On 1/19/2012 5:50 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
> On 1/19/12 2:17 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> On 1/19/2012 1:56 PM, Kevin Cully wrote:
>>> 2) Site compression is better by around 2% if using all lowercase tags.
>>
>>
>> Cool. Wonder why?
>
> Lowercase letters have higher ASCII values. The hi
On 1/19/12 2:50 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
> On 1/19/12 2:17 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> On 1/19/2012 1:56 PM, Kevin Cully wrote:
>>> 2) Site compression is better by around 2% if using all lowercase tags.
>>
>>
>> Cool. Wonder why?
>
> Lowercase letters have higher ASCII values. The high
On 1/19/12 2:17 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
> On 1/19/2012 1:56 PM, Kevin Cully wrote:
>> 2) Site compression is better by around 2% if using all lowercase tags.
>
>
> Cool. Wonder why?
Lowercase letters have higher ASCII values. The higher the ASCII value, the
more bits
to compress.
On 1/19/2012 1:56 PM, Kevin Cully wrote:
> 2) Site compression is better by around 2% if using all lowercase tags.
Cool. Wonder why?
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http://fabmate.com
http://twitter.com/mbabcoc
Didn't know that. After a quick Googling, it appears that there's two
benefits:
1) Better compatibility if needing to change between HTML and XHTML
2) Site compression is better by around 2% if using all lowercase tags.
I love learning stuff.
On 01/19/2012 11:24 AM, Ted Roche wrote:
> Lowercas
12 matches
Mail list logo
