I know you can include css and images, among other file types, which have been stored in base64 form within a javascript file. However, those are decently huge... and gzipped, they shrink down a LOT, even with the ~33% overhead from base64 encoding.
Non-gzipped, images are data:image/gif;base64, data:image/jpeg, data:image/png, and css is data:text/css;base64. What mime type can/should I be using, then, to include css or image data URIs which are gzipped? (Or if gzip+base64 can't work, is there any other compression I can do to bring down the string's size, while still keeping the data stored within the javascript?)
..edit.. I think the question is being misunderstood. I am not asking if I should include gzipped base64 strings within javascript. Yes, I know it's best, in most cases, to gzip the javascript and other files on the server end. But that is not applicable for a userscript; a userscript has no server, and consists of only a single file. Firefox allows a @require directive, but Opera and Chrome do not, and local file security issues come into play with loading any local files. Thus anything needed by the script has to be either: 1) on the web (slow) or 2) embedded in the userscript (big).
Now this question assumes that big is preferable to slow, but that big does not have to mean we totally ignore just how big; if it can be smaller, that's an improvement.
So assuming that a base64 string is embedded in javascript, the question is how to make it into something meaningful.
Either:
1) atob() can convert raw base64-encoded gzip to raw gzip within javascript. (atob does not need to know the mediatype). The question then would be how to decompress that raw gzipped css or image file so that the resulting output can be fed into the document.
or 2) given the proper mediatype, browsers at least theoretically (per the datauri RFC) should be able to load any file directly from a datauri. "" is sufficient to load a non-gzipped css stylesheet. The question here would be what link type attribute and datauri mediatype combination should work (and which browsers would it work for)? Preferably, for a userscript, this would be a combination that works in Opera, FF, and Chrome.
In HTTP, compression is most often only applied for transmission to reduce the payload that is to be transmitted. This is done by the Content-Encoding header field.
ReplyDeleteBut the data URL scheme is very limited and you can only specify the media type:
dataurl := "data:" [ mediatype ] [ ";base64" ] "," data
Although you could use a multipart message, most user agents don’t support them in data URLs. It would also be questionable whether the additional data to describe such a multipart message wouldn’t be more than the data you safe by compressing the actual payload.
So compressing the data in a data URL is possible in theory but impracticable. It is better to simply compress the whole document the data URL is embedded in.