[theme-reviewers] Question about ob_start and ob_get_clean (Vicky Arulsingam)

Darren Slatten darrenslatten at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 07:44:15 UTC 2011

Cool, thanks for the tip.

In other words, your argument (again) boils down to "reject GREAT, because
we've already got GOOD ENOUGH."

You're not solving the problem, you're minimizing it.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Darren Slatten <darrenslatten at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > An extra HTTP request obviously doesn't come free, so...yes, a 308-byte
> > script really does slow down your page loads.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're basing your "caches everywhere" statement on,
> but I
> > know that l10n.js is packaged with WP and served from each site's
> respective
> > directory (as opposed to being served from a public resource like
> > Google-hosted jQuery). Therefore, whether or not it is cached depends on
> > each server configuration--most of which follow the default behavior,
> which
> > is to NOT cache the file.
> If you don't set up your server to send caching headers for static
> files properly in the first place, then you haven't even begun to
> start to think about optimizing your site for speed. That's like step
> 1. It's not like it's hard to do. Heck, you can copy-pasta some
> htaccess rules to do the job.
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110703/9e8f8865/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list