Drupal strips the whitespace and comments out of.js and .css,
aggregates them and caches them.

You can turn this off in development.


On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I recommend immersing yourself in Steve Souder's two books—High
> Performance Websites, and Even Faster Websites. As it stresses again
> and again, the killer isn't the length of your content, but the number
> of files (only so many can be loaded in parallel), latency, expiry
> checks and so forth. Positioning of JavaScript is also critical,
> although putting it at the bottom can be a real pain. Sounders rules
> are built into YSlow as most of you probably know.
> LibraryThing's solution—a common one—is to use full CSS and JS on the
> dev. server. But on the real server each page has only one CSS and one
> JS file. And they have far-future expiry dates. The system changes
> their names (which are nonsense hashes) if they change. They've been
> compressed too, but that doesn't make much of a difference. Gzipping
> them helps more for bandwidth bills than speed. We split up files
> across two domains, www and static, because simultaneous download
> limits are by domain.
> We also toyed with CSS sprites a fair amount, to avoid multiple image
> loads—our sprite is—but the
> savings aren't that considerable.
> Best,
> Tim
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Richard, Joel M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I sort of agree with Mike on this, but I could play devil's advocate and say...
>> If you include comments in your CSS (which I'm sure you do, because we're all conscientious developers and practice good coding standards. :), then removing them and condensing the file down can make it significantly smaller. It may be an extreme example, but YUI's base.css and base-min.css are 2.23 K and 0.89 K respectively. My CSS files often weigh in at well over 15 K before compression.
>> Also, keep in mind that these days modern web pages depend heavily on the stylesheet to render in a pretty manner. Therefore the smaller it is, the faster the browser can make use of it.
>> Just my two cents... This is also useful:
>> --Joel (the other one)
>> Joel Richard
>> IT Specialist, Web Services Department
>> Smithsonian Institution Libraries |
>> (202) 633-1706 | (202) 786-2861 (f) | [log in to unmask]
>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>> On 14 January 2011 16:28, Joel Marchesoni <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Hey Everyone,
>>>> I'm working on optimizing our CSS files and can't find anything about this on the web. I know that some browsers/systems have issues with really long lines in files and wanted to get some opinions about removing all line breaks from a CSS file to conserve space. I've seen some optimizers that give the option NOT to remove them, but don't explain why.
>>> Why bother?  CSS files are tiny compared with the images you're no
>>> doubt also loading and literally negligible compared with video.  They
>>> get loaded once per session, then cached in the browser.  Messing with
>>> the whitespace will have absolutely no perceptible effect on
>>> efficiency for anyone who's not using a 300 baud modem.
> --
> Check out my library at

Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company