Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Unfortunately I think a lot of the points in this article are lost if you assume that the CDN's serving up the TTF for FontAwesome are using GZIP compression.

I was curious and checked out FA's CDN https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/FontAwesom... and the rest of the fonts as https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v4.7.0/fonts/fontawesom... (not sure why they name the OTF differently)

    otf   110KB
    eot   102KB  
    svg   157KB  
    ttf   102KB  
    woff  96.1KB  
    woff2 75.8KB  
All appear to be using gzip in headers

On my machine, the otf version uses much less bandwidth. From 52.4 kb to 16.4.

I'm getting the same results in Chrome using mac, win10, or ubuntu.

Are you using the same URLs I posted?

Well I'm stumped. Would love to know how we are getting different results, and how your results (16KB) are _so_ much better than mine (110KB)

Here is a codepen if someone else wants to try OTF results


Opening the link you provided above with Firefox and bringing up network motior, I get the same as you; 109.18 KB "transferred", 131.65 KB "size", and gzip was used according to headers. I thought that maybe "transferred" might be the size of the data after decompression, and "size" would be "transferred" plus headers, but then I checked Chromium and I see 110 KB there as well.

It seems very strange that the size reported by the parent is varying. Why would it do that? Are they all the same file or different ones?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact