The NodeJS server version does indeed serve the index gzipped. My focus is
more on single-file wikis, however.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:45 PM Matt DeMoss wrote:
> I already see
> content-encoding:
> gzip
> on the initial response from my setup (2.6MB and 636KB transferred). It
> could be the
I already see
content-encoding:
gzip
on the initial response from my setup (2.6MB and 636KB transferred). It
could be the nginx reverse proxy doing that, but gzip_proxied defaults to
off so I think that's coming from tiddlywiki's listener. I don't see it on
subsequent responses.
There's
I don't think Gzip would have a hangup with it, in fact, I'm pretty sure it
would save on compression time. But I don't know that for sure. A lot of
websites don't use compression, however, so I think it would still be a big
bonus.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:38 PM Lost Admin wrote:
> I had to
I had to read through the comments on github a couple of times to
understand the proposal.
I'm against it being a part of the default TiddlyWiki (empty.html) because
it won't benefit serving TiddlyWiki from a properly configured web server
(which should gzip the file before transmitting it).
Arlen
I would trust your expertise on this. I suppose we need a proof of concept.
Also could I ask that consideration be given to surfacing this within
tiddlywiki to users as well. If we could store, compress and decompress and
import export files and tiddlers so compressed in tiddlywiki UI it
This idea has nothing to do with empty.html itself, it really applies to
all single-file wikis. All wikis could benefit from this because the core
tiddler is exactly the same in all wikis for each version, no matter which
other plugins are added. The core is just another plugin, that's all.
Hi Tony!
That's quite true and your idea is great!
Recommending to downloading empty.html for newbies is not a good practice
at all!
--Mohammad
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:27:13 PM UTC+4:30, TonyM wrote:
>
> Mohammad
>
> I too support a smaller empty and core which is the current
Mohammad
I too support a smaller empty and core which is the current standard practice.
However I do not want an overly minimalistic edition being users first take
home copy of tiddlywiki. Empty plus a few items like the contents tab and
active home and more page buttons would be a start, also
Hi Tony!
I think these questions are better to answered by Arlen!
By the way, I am supporting smaller empty.html (or better a small $:/core).
I also very interested in modular design! Lets people decide what they want
alongside the $:/core!
I think maintenance and development workflow is
9 matches
Mail list logo
