From adffaces-user-return-2145-apmail-incubator-adffaces-user-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Feb 13 17:49:21 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-adffaces-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 69687 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2007 17:49:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Feb 2007 17:49:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 77553 invoked by uid 500); 13 Feb 2007 17:49:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-adffaces-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77528 invoked by uid 500); 13 Feb 2007 17:49:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact adffaces-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: adffaces-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list adffaces-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77519 invoked by uid 99); 13 Feb 2007 17:49:28 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:49:28 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of chris.lowe.uk@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.228 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.228] (HELO nz-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.162.228) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:49:18 -0800 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id j2so2103393nzf for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:48:58 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fgCqoO+c+IJrAKgOx6lacqTFur63g0HJDbXKWEqH3phmTlKDsMZ8wP/MN0iHYiUb1gZQfgiw1PobSkMWu9RqkHLSMTUIA+ReXR9HKRUMVMnau8UKg8eCzhv0rCXWjoIaDcQhL3vPjHy5s9Dfx8xLtNE75QJsqcum3QUqNYRnIB8= Received: by 10.65.137.15 with SMTP id p15mr23652695qbn.1171388938006; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.196.4 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:48:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:48:57 +0000 From: "Chris Lowe" To: adffaces-user@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Skinless In-Reply-To: <6dac79b90702130914i5b4fa7a8v36986ead6199d0f1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_55381_17369677.1171388937970" References: <6dac79b90702130914i5b4fa7a8v36986ead6199d0f1@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_55381_17369677.1171388937970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Adam, Thanks for the info on the minimal skin, I'll switch to that in the meantime. An even more minimal skin would be great though - anything to save bandwidth, server hits and browser parsing of CSS/JS will be greatly appreciated. My main reasons for not using a skin are cited in my original post. I'm using making minimal use of the Trinidad component set (using <10 components) and having the CSS download seems excessive, plus learning about the skinning for my needs was overkill. So for my current project, regular CSS suited my needs for positioning and setting simple attributes like width. I completely get the point of skinning and it looks really useful, it's just not necessary at the minute. I will be using a compression filter for resources like CSS, I've always found that the following filter does everything I need: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pjl-comp-filter/ Are there any better ones out there? Are the Trinidad generated CSS/JS files constant between pages? If so, do you see any problem with setting the HTTP cache headers: "Expires" and "Cache-Control" to prevent the browser from requesting these resources on each page request? Cheers, Chris. On 13/02/07, Adam Winer wrote: > > Skinning is an integral feature, so there's no turning it > off. You could switch to a simpler l+f - minimal, for instance, > clocks in at <30K. We could provide an even more minimal l+f, > perhaps. But, I wonder, why are you looking to completely disable > skinning? > > If it's an issue of download size, you might consider getting > a .gzip filter involved, which will majorly decrease the size > of the .css file (~80% smaller). The minimal l+f .css comes > in at about 5K once gzip'd. > > -- Adam > > > > On 2/13/07, Chris Lowe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is it possible to switch off skinning altogether? If so, will turning > off > > the skinning prevent the wrapping of various components in SPANs and the > > download of a ~140k CSS file? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris. > > > ------=_Part_55381_17369677.1171388937970--