Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread: HTML Shrinker. Good? Bad? Ugly?
Apr 11, 2001, 11:18 #1
- Join Date
- Nov 2000
- Atlanta, GA
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Does anyone have an opinion on the use of programs such as HTML Shrinker (available from http://www.thepluginsite.com )? I just tried it for the first time and it seems pretty cool, but I'm wondering if there's any drawbacks which I might not be aware of.
For anyone not familiar with HTML Shrinker, it claims:
HTML Shrinker removes all unnecessary bytes within html files. The look of the html page won't change after it is compressed. It just looks like before. You won't see a difference, only the file size will be smaller. HTML Shrinker currently removes from html files as follows:
unnecessary end of lines
unnecessary quotes within tags
Frontpage webbot tags
unnecessary elements within all kind of scripts
all end of paragraphs (Pro Version only)
all end of list items (Pro Version only)
unnecessary font tags (Pro Version only)
unnecessary font face names (Pro Version only)
all empty tag attributes (Pro Version only)
... and replaces:
large tags with smaller ones (Pro Version only)
unnecessary large characters with smaller ones (Pro Version only)
Now, like I said, I just tried it out 5 minutes ago on a simple test HTML file. The file was originally created by Dreamweaver 4.0 and had some minor manual editing done to it to clean it up a bit. It was realtively small, at 12K.
I ran HTML Shrinker on it and the new file size was 10K. Not bad. If used on a larger file I can certainly see how it would reduce page load time, disk space usage, and bandwidth usage.
The only problem I have found is that the "after" HTML is all, um, "scrunched" together. That's part of how it saves space. Removing spaces, tabs, etc. Working on this new HTML would suck. But, I could see how keeping the original HTML locally for updates, then running HTML Shrinker just before uploading, would be advantageous.
Am I missing anything?