Doesn't surprise me, but I'm a nitpickerI think the reason that optimisations haven't been done is because it's still being developed.
Suggestions like placing JS above the closing body element, caching CSS/JS, optimising have already been addressed.
When the image changes, read the image and store the dimensions.Image dimensions usually aren't set, because every forum owner actually uses different sized header images.
How are they suppose to include the CSS then ?I would like to see css.php eliminated completely tbh
However, if someone has a larger file, or the user has a slow connection, on some browsers, it will not render the page until it can block out the image correctly on the pageImage dimensions usually aren't set, because every forum owner actually uses different sized header images.
I would like to see css.php eliminated completely tbh
How are they suppose to include the PHP then ?
How are they suppose to include the CSS then ?
Fair point.When the image changes, read the image and store the dimensions.
And you know when the image changes... how?When the image changes, read the image and store the dimensions.
And you know when the image changes... how?
It's placed in the <head> section ... which is before <body>Also is there any reason the JS isn't placed before </body> for better rendering speed?
Various components have to be initialized immediately rather than waiting for $(document).ready(). TinyMCE is one of them.Also is there any reason the JS isn't placed before </body> for better rendering speed?
Various components have to be initialized immediately rather than waiting for $(document).ready(). TinyMCE is one of them.
I had a typo ;p.They're not including PHP. PHP runs server side, generates content, which gets included.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.