<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for High Performance Web Sites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog</link>
	<description>Essential knowledge for making your web pages faster.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:46:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Andy Davies</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3707</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Davies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3707</guid>
		<description>Agree that a geo distributed CDN will provide benefits to visitors as the get &#039;futher&#039; from the origin.

I want you to be right about the shared caching benefits - I get the theory - but I&#039;m not sure that just looking at how sites are built gives us enough information.

The piece we&#039;re missing is &#039;how long do the libraries live in the browser cache&#039; - the Yahoo work showed how often even a high profile sites assets drop out of the cache. 

Now in theory files that are shared between sites should stay in the cache longer but doesn&#039;t that heavily depend on how often and in what order people visit sites?

I think the ideas you&#039;ve had on how caches should work could be really beneficial for people using the library CDNs.

When it arrives the ResourceTiming API may also offer site owners an insight into what benefits they&#039;re users are getting (or not) from hosting on a library CDN. (partly depends on whether the API is opt in or out too)

I guess the advice for site owners might be &quot;use the location/version of jQuery that&#039;s most commonly used by the most popular sites&quot; but of course that also comes with tradeoffs!

Web performance is such a great world to be in...

(BTW planning on borrowing your graph showing how transfer size has changed over the last year for a presentation on performance in late Feb/early Mar - will forward the link when it&#039;s done and will of course credit you)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree that a geo distributed CDN will provide benefits to visitors as the get &#8216;futher&#8217; from the origin.</p>
<p>I want you to be right about the shared caching benefits &#8211; I get the theory &#8211; but I&#8217;m not sure that just looking at how sites are built gives us enough information.</p>
<p>The piece we&#8217;re missing is &#8216;how long do the libraries live in the browser cache&#8217; &#8211; the Yahoo work showed how often even a high profile sites assets drop out of the cache. </p>
<p>Now in theory files that are shared between sites should stay in the cache longer but doesn&#8217;t that heavily depend on how often and in what order people visit sites?</p>
<p>I think the ideas you&#8217;ve had on how caches should work could be really beneficial for people using the library CDNs.</p>
<p>When it arrives the ResourceTiming API may also offer site owners an insight into what benefits they&#8217;re users are getting (or not) from hosting on a library CDN. (partly depends on whether the API is opt in or out too)</p>
<p>I guess the advice for site owners might be &#8220;use the location/version of jQuery that&#8217;s most commonly used by the most popular sites&#8221; but of course that also comes with tradeoffs!</p>
<p>Web performance is such a great world to be in&#8230;</p>
<p>(BTW planning on borrowing your graph showing how transfer size has changed over the last year for a presentation on performance in late Feb/early Mar &#8211; will forward the link when it&#8217;s done and will of course credit you)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on (lack of) Caching for iPhone Home Screen Apps by Morgan Cheng</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2011/06/28/lack-of-caching-for-iphone-home-screen-apps/#comment-3705</link>
		<dc:creator>Morgan Cheng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=1999#comment-3705</guid>
		<description>Hi Steve, 

I read this article again and found the update :&quot;Update Oct 12: Home screen apps in iOS 5 do not exhibit this problem. Blaze.io reports that home screen apps use caching as expected. They also have faster JS likely do to the integration of the Nitro engine.&quot;

As I tested it in my iPhone4S with iOS 5.0.1 today, if the web page is expected to be launched with full screen from home screen, it still cannot leverage cache.

That is, if there is &quot;&quot; in , there is no If-Modified-Since header in all requests from the page launched from home screen. 

If there is no full-screen, then yes there is improvement in iOS 5. Expires header works for page from home screen.

Can you please double check it and update your findings?

Thanks,
-Morgan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Steve, </p>
<p>I read this article again and found the update :&#8221;Update Oct 12: Home screen apps in iOS 5 do not exhibit this problem. Blaze.io reports that home screen apps use caching as expected. They also have faster JS likely do to the integration of the Nitro engine.&#8221;</p>
<p>As I tested it in my iPhone4S with iOS 5.0.1 today, if the web page is expected to be launched with full screen from home screen, it still cannot leverage cache.</p>
<p>That is, if there is &#8220;&#8221; in , there is no If-Modified-Since header in all requests from the page launched from home screen. </p>
<p>If there is no full-screen, then yes there is improvement in iOS 5. Expires header works for page from home screen.</p>
<p>Can you please double check it and update your findings?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
-Morgan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Steve Souders</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3704</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Souders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3704</guid>
		<description>@Sergey: Thanks for the comment. I love analyzing the HTTP Archive data, but I also love the idea of putting the data out there for *other* people to analyze (such as Steve Webster&#039;s article highlighted in Andy&#039;s comment). I encourage you to &lt;a href=&quot;http://httparchive.org/downloads.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;download the data&lt;/a&gt; and slice &amp; dice it to answer your question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Sergey: Thanks for the comment. I love analyzing the HTTP Archive data, but I also love the idea of putting the data out there for *other* people to analyze (such as Steve Webster&#8217;s article highlighted in Andy&#8217;s comment). I encourage you to <a href="http://httparchive.org/downloads.php" rel="nofollow">download the data</a> and slice &#038; dice it to answer your question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Sergey Chernyshev</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3703</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey Chernyshev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3703</guid>
		<description>And I forgot to thank you for the review - I was lazily waiting for the numbers ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I forgot to thank you for the review &#8211; I was lazily waiting for the numbers ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Sergey Chernyshev</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3702</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey Chernyshev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3702</guid>
		<description>Steve, did you do any analysis regarding the source of JS size increase?

Can it be because jQuery size growth or is it because of in-house code-base grew bigger?

Couple quick links on the topic:
http://mathiasbynens.be/demo/jquery-size
http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery#Current_Release</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, did you do any analysis regarding the source of JS size increase?</p>
<p>Can it be because jQuery size growth or is it because of in-house code-base grew bigger?</p>
<p>Couple quick links on the topic:<br />
<a href="http://mathiasbynens.be/demo/jquery-size" rel="nofollow">http://mathiasbynens.be/demo/jquery-size</a><br />
<a href="http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery#Current_Release" rel="nofollow">http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery#Current_Release</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Steve Souders</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3700</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Souders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3700</guid>
		<description>@Andy: Great to hear from you! Steve Webster&#039;s article is great but doesn&#039;t provide evidence that using Google Libraries API is faster or slower - he just comments on the lower potential cache hit rate for a specific file version. (Which makes sense.)

My point still stands: using the Google Libraries API provides benefits of a geo distributed CDN and caching across websites.

Regarding geo distributed CDN: If your website already has a good CDN this might not make a difference, but if you&#039;re serving from a single geo location you&#039;re probably better off using a CDN.

Regarding caching across sites: It&#039;s definitely true that the probability is less for a single version of a file, but the probability is still higher than if you host it only on your own server. For example, looking at yesterday&#039;s batch run, &quot;http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.1/jquery.min.js&quot; is requested on 114 of the top 10K websites. That significantly increases the probability of it already being in the cache compared to requesting it from your own server, especially if you&#039;re not in the top 10K.

I agree with you that this might not make a huge difference, but I still think it&#039;s a good idea especially for sites that don&#039;t have a CDN and are outside the top 10K.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Andy: Great to hear from you! Steve Webster&#8217;s article is great but doesn&#8217;t provide evidence that using Google Libraries API is faster or slower &#8211; he just comments on the lower potential cache hit rate for a specific file version. (Which makes sense.)</p>
<p>My point still stands: using the Google Libraries API provides benefits of a geo distributed CDN and caching across websites.</p>
<p>Regarding geo distributed CDN: If your website already has a good CDN this might not make a difference, but if you&#8217;re serving from a single geo location you&#8217;re probably better off using a CDN.</p>
<p>Regarding caching across sites: It&#8217;s definitely true that the probability is less for a single version of a file, but the probability is still higher than if you host it only on your own server. For example, looking at yesterday&#8217;s batch run, &#8220;http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.1/jquery.min.js&#8221; is requested on 114 of the top 10K websites. That significantly increases the probability of it already being in the cache compared to requesting it from your own server, especially if you&#8217;re not in the top 10K.</p>
<p>I agree with you that this might not make a huge difference, but I still think it&#8217;s a good idea especially for sites that don&#8217;t have a CDN and are outside the top 10K.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on don&#8217;t use @import by Steve Souders</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/#comment-3699</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Souders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=291#comment-3699</guid>
		<description>@ShaunR: I&#039;ve written 3 blog posts about fonts. Here&#039;s a good place to start: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/06/01/frontend-spof/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Frontend SPOF&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ShaunR: I&#8217;ve written 3 blog posts about fonts. Here&#8217;s a good place to start: <a href="http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/06/01/frontend-spof/" rel="nofollow">Frontend SPOF</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on don&#8217;t use @import by ShaunR</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/#comment-3698</link>
		<dc:creator>ShaunR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=291#comment-3698</guid>
		<description>This article was pointed out to me a while ago by a CSS guru and as a result Miser (http://sourceforge.net/projects/miser/) merges all @imports to mitigate this. Great article.

Have you also looked at web fonts? (eg *.eot). They also force sequential downloads and unfortunately are becoming more and more prevalent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article was pointed out to me a while ago by a CSS guru and as a result Miser (<a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/miser/" rel="nofollow">http://sourceforge.net/projects/miser/</a>) merges all @imports to mitigate this. Great article.</p>
<p>Have you also looked at web fonts? (eg *.eot). They also force sequential downloads and unfortunately are becoming more and more prevalent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Andy Davies</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3696</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Davies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3696</guid>
		<description>You might want to be a bit careful over the Google CDNs bit...

A while back @spjwebster (works for LoveFilm in the UK, I think) did some digging into the usage of libraries hosted on Google&#039;s CDN and came to the conclusion that it&#039;s not really a rosy picture at all - http://statichtml.com/2011/google-ajax-libraries-caching.html

Main problem is that many sites rely on specific versions of a library (say jQuery) and due to this it&#039;s unlikely the version they need is already in the cache.

I&#039;ve also seen some examples where the cost of going to the Google CDN i.e. DNS lookup, TCP connection setup, is actually slower than serving jQuery form the origin site.

@andydavies</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to be a bit careful over the Google CDNs bit&#8230;</p>
<p>A while back @spjwebster (works for LoveFilm in the UK, I think) did some digging into the usage of libraries hosted on Google&#8217;s CDN and came to the conclusion that it&#8217;s not really a rosy picture at all &#8211; <a href="http://statichtml.com/2011/google-ajax-libraries-caching.html" rel="nofollow">http://statichtml.com/2011/google-ajax-libraries-caching.html</a></p>
<p>Main problem is that many sites rely on specific versions of a library (say jQuery) and due to this it&#8217;s unlikely the version they need is already in the cache.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve also seen some examples where the cost of going to the Google CDN i.e. DNS lookup, TCP connection setup, is actually slower than serving jQuery form the origin site.</p>
<p>@andydavies</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HTTP Archive: 2011 recap by Joakim Westin</title>
		<link>http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/02/01/http-archive-2011-recap/#comment-3695</link>
		<dc:creator>Joakim Westin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/?p=2399#comment-3695</guid>
		<description>Thank you for this excellent aggregation of data. 

It should help developers set priorities for improving their websites!

Cheers,
Joakim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this excellent aggregation of data. </p>
<p>It should help developers set priorities for improving their websites!</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Joakim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

