8 Comments
- mdarby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It doesn't compress anything. Simply removes whitespace (and all editability!)
- FlyingAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For small sites, yes, this is not very useful.
However, just to play Devil's Advocate, if you have a big site with a large CSS file, and you save 5-10k on each visitor to your site, you would see a small bandwidth reduction. Also, you might not WANT other people seeing your CSS, in which case obfuscating it would be a good thing. Also, on a 56k connection, 5-10k smaller is at least a a few seconds difference, that doesn't sound like a lot, but try counting to three before a page renders, 3 seconds can be the difference between someone going to or skipping out on your site because it loads too slow. - valan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It would be more useful if you could compress by combining tags using the shorthand formats, and then choose between keeping formatting or not.
- Sionide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*looks at his style sheet* Yeah, it's tiny. 5k-ish is nothing on modern broadband connections, even on a 56k modem it would take seconds to load it.
- noahhendrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't quite understand why you would compress it. I mean if you figured you were never going to use it again.
- mdarby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wasn't this posted last week?
- Percept, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You should be crazy to use such compression on a stylesheet ... it's practically impossible to edit afterwards.
- gunnmjk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry I don't see the point. Most CSS files are under 5k and after compressed, it's still under 5k.


What is Digg?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the