[wp-hackers] Packing JavaScript

Otto otto at ottodestruct.com
Tue Sep 18 18:48:07 GMT 2007

On 9/18/07, Charles <lists07 at wiltgen.net> wrote:
> Another plus is speed benefits for end users.

Compressed javascript is slower for end users, because you have the
extra overhead of unpacking the javascript.

> JavaScript compression complements generic text compression nicely.  I use
> "SetOutputFilter DEFLATE", and that works very well.

I doubt that the minimal difference between packed JS and unpacked JS,
given than both are being compressed using zlib, is highly

> Anyway, the combination of (1) JavaScript compression, (2) generic
> server-side text compression and (3) file-combining is the norm, not the
> exception, for sites that uses JavaScript for anything more serious than
> roll-overs.

1 and 3 are useless in most (not all, mind you) cases. Whether it's
the "norm" or not is debatable and largely opinion unless you can
actually prove it with statistics. But whether they add a significant
difference or not can actually be measured through testing. I submit
that adding 1 and 3 to 2 will not produce a significant difference
from just 2 alone.

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list