Last modified: 2005-12-20 11:31:53 UTC
I don't think this requires any explanation. There should be two ways of viewing HTML: * Normal: remove all unnecessary characters to minimize download time * Special: format the HTML neatly (e.g. "</head>" is on its own line and directly below "<head>") for those who want to examine it Alternatively we could just use the first option and those who want to examine the HTML can use another program to clean it up, or do so manually.
Try to have bug reports relate to MediaWiki in some way, rather than general comments about a standard markup language.
My comments are relevant generally but I am thinking here about the specific HTML outputted by MediaWiki, and this is the only place to fix it. Therefore, my report does relate to MediaWiki.
Well, if you want to pretty up the HTML you can copy-and-paste it to any text editor with XML/HTML prettification functions. So... seems done?
I did acknowledge this in my original comment. You did not address the other statement I made: we should compact the HTML to make it smaller and load faster.
The XHTML standard doesn't require that markup is formatted to be human-readable.
$ perl -MLWP::Simple -le '$c = get "http://localhost/mw/HEAD/wiki/Albert_Einstein"; (@c) = $c =~ /\n/g;print for length $c, scalar @c, ((scalar @c)/(length $c))*100 . "%"' 124961 1717 1.37402869695345% Stripping newlines would result in approximately 1.5% bandwidth saving in the XHTML for each page acc. to my tests.
Did you test with or without gzip encoding?
(In reply to comment #7) > Did you test with or without gzip encoding? Assuming that it's ungzipped...
What's gzip encoding got to do with this? What do we think about the 1.5% figure?
(In reply to comment #9) > What's gzip encoding got to do with this? What do we think about the 1.5% figure? It has a lot to do with determining whether or not the performance gain is worth it, considering our various caching and compression systems. Obviously, we like the figure if it's worth it...
Created attachment 1160 [details] Test script Seems to be around 0.5% space saving if gzip is accounted for
As I understand it, gzip is not used over the Internet in this case but other compression may be used. Is this the case? Do all the Wikimedia systems use gzip only?
You understand incorrectly.
