Side by Side Diff: README.md
Issue 29452268:
No Issue - CSS Media Query Packer Proposal (Closed)
Patch Set:
Created May 30, 2017, 4:24 p.m.
| Left: | ||
| Right: |
Use n/p to move between diff chunks;
N/P to move between comments.
« no previous file with comments
|
« no previous file
|
no next file »
|
no next file with comments »
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')
| OLD | NEW |
|---|---|
| (Empty) | |
| 1 # CSS Media Query Packer Proposal | |
| 2 | |
| 3 ## Background | |
| 4 | |
| 5 Following on from [Issue 29441585](https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29441585/) , the question here is whether we need to use [css-mqpacker](https://github.com/ hail2u/node-css-mqpacker) to consolidate our media queries, assuming the propose d style of writing media queries is adopted. | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 ## Size Comparison | |
| 9 | |
| 10 I ran a comparison between the expanded, minified, and gzipped versions of both options: | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | default | with mqpacker | |
| 13 -------------|-----------|-------------- | |
| 14 Expanded CSS | 625 bytes | 463 bytes | |
| 15 Minified CSS | 430 bytes | 300 bytes | |
| 16 GZipped CSS | 135 bytes | 131 bytes | |
| 17 | |
| 18 As Thomas suggested, the difference between the GZipped versions is quite neglig able. So, the potential issues that the re-ordering of our CSS the plugin may ca use, may not be worth it. | |
| OLD | NEW |
« no previous file with comments
|
« no previous file
|
no next file »
|
no next file with comments »
