Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Semantic HTML advantages?

  1. #1
    Twayne
    Guest

    Default Semantic HTML advantages?

    Hi again,

    Looks like I'm not doing too well with my questions lately but I'm going
    to try another one anyway.

    I'm working on a local non-profit's site that's been established, but
    .... here in the toolies there are quite a few 56k modem users yet. So
    I've been tweaking things trying to get at least the Home Page (as a
    start) to load in about 20 seconds, allowing for latencies, etc., of 0.7
    in the calcs.
    I've it to 21.x Seconds from a starting point of 70 seconds.
    Decluttering, a k here, a k there, a couple over there, turning on
    compression for html and links, wherever I could squeeze it and still
    have a complete and usable page.
    Now I'd like to break the 20 Second barrier, and I *thought*, from
    reading, that I might do it with Semantic HTML. Unfortunately though,
    Semantic HTML adds a tad over 7 seconds to the download times! My
    questions are:

    1. Am I wrong (along with the docu) in thinking that Semantic HTML will
    actually save any load time?

    2. I don't see any way to compress Headers on the pages. With a tad
    over a hundred pages, that's a LOT of headers overall on the site.
    Is there a way to compress the headers, or is that reaching a point
    of diminishing returns?

    Thanks for your thoughts and advice,

    Twayne




  2. #2
    Derek
    Guest

    Default Re: Semantic HTML advantages?

    Twayne wrote:
    < [snip]
    >
    > 1. Am I wrong (along with the docu) in thinking that Semantic HTML will
    > actually save any load time?
    >
    > 2. I don't see any way to compress Headers on the pages. With a tad
    > over a hundred pages, that's a LOT of headers overall on the site.
    > Is there a way to compress the headers, or is that reaching a point
    > of diminishing returns?
    >
    > Thanks for your thoughts and advice,
    >
    > Twayne
    >


    I suspect that in most cases Semantic XHTML won't save a huge amount of
    time compared to (e.g) tables; the page code is cleaner, but it usually
    needs more in the CSS. Swings and roundabouts...

    Compression is a tricky one; it done by your server, so will be
    dependent upon your ISP. It'll work best when you have fair quantities
    of text (html, content, CSS, javascript...) in the page. If you have
    mostly images (for instance), it won't help as these are already
    compressed. Have a look here
    (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...weak/compress/) for a
    discussion. The guy's written for O'Reilly, that's plenty good enough
    for me <g>.

    Don't know if you've tried the FF/Firebug YSlow plugin that Nancy
    mentioned recently (http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/), but it's pretty
    darn handy for optimising...

    Derek.

  3. #3
    Twayne
    Guest

    Default Re: Semantic HTML advantages?

    erek wrote:
    > Twayne wrote:
    > < [snip]
    >>
    >> 1. Am I wrong (along with the docu) in thinking that Semantic HTML
    >> will actually save any load time?
    >>
    >> 2. I don't see any way to compress Headers on the pages. With a tad
    >> over a hundred pages, that's a LOT of headers overall on the site.
    >> Is there a way to compress the headers, or is that reaching a
    >> point of diminishing returns?
    >>
    >> Thanks for your thoughts and advice,
    >>
    >> Twayne
    >>

    >
    > I suspect that in most cases Semantic XHTML won't save a huge amount
    > of time compared to (e.g) tables; the page code is cleaner, but it
    > usually needs more in the CSS. Swings and roundabouts...
    >
    > Compression is a tricky one; it done by your server, so will be
    > dependent upon your ISP. It'll work best when you have fair quantities
    > of text (html, content, CSS, javascript...) in the page. If you have
    > mostly images (for instance), it won't help as these are already
    > compressed. Have a look here
    > (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/s...weak/compress/) for a
    > discussion. The guy's written for O'Reilly, that's plenty good enough
    > for me <g>.
    >
    > Don't know if you've tried the FF/Firebug YSlow plugin that Nancy
    > mentioned recently (http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/), but it's
    > pretty darn handy for optimising...
    >
    > Derek.


    Thanks Derek. Don't specifically recall reading that page so I'll go
    have a look; I have spent time at websiteoptimization.com though. Handy
    site & seems pretty knowledgeable. Pretty sure someone here gave me the
    URL, for which I'm grateful too. Very useful optimizer scan there.

    You know, I downloaded Nancy's recommended Yslow plugin, got interrupted
    and then pomptly forgot all about it! Nothing like not using the tools
    one has been handed, dang it.

    Regards,

    Twayne





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •