Unified Diff: README.md
Issue 29452268:
No Issue - CSS Media Query Packer Proposal (Closed)
Patch Set:
Created May 30, 2017, 4:24 p.m.
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 »
Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')
Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')
| Index: README.md |
| =================================================================== |
| new file mode 100644 |
| --- /dev/null |
| +++ b/README.md |
| @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ |
| +# CSS Media Query Packer Proposal |
| + |
| +## Background |
| + |
| +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 proposed style of writing media queries is adopted. |
| + |
| + |
| +## Size Comparison |
| + |
| +I ran a comparison between the expanded, minified, and gzipped versions of both options: |
| + |
| + | default | with mqpacker |
| +-------------|-----------|-------------- |
| +Expanded CSS | 625 bytes | 463 bytes |
| +Minified CSS | 430 bytes | 300 bytes |
| +GZipped CSS | 135 bytes | 131 bytes |
| + |
| +As Thomas suggested, the difference between the GZipped versions is quite negligable. So, the potential issues that the re-ordering of our CSS the plugin may cause, may not be worth it. |
« no previous file with comments
|
« no previous file
|
no next file »
|
no next file with comments »
