alistrius wrote:

and besides this money consideration, it should be a nice feature

I'm against this. In my experience, the savings from javascript compressors post-gzip are so small that you could only justify it on the grounds of obfuscation. Obfuscation is not what we're about. These files are cached on the client side so typically sent to the user once per visit.

If you want something to optimise, try the 51KB of edit tools we send out every time someone clicks a red link (over 100KB on commons).

alexsm333 wrote:

I remember at least 3 proposals on en.wp to replace Edittools with JavaScript. There was no opposition, but none of the admins was brave enough to actually implement this (sorry for offtopic).

ayg wrote:

I agree with Tim. We already compress it, using gzip. The benefits of any further compression are outweighed by the annoyance of anyone who actually wants to read the stuff.

According to YSlow (http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/), a number of JS files from commons are not gzip'd. Try editing a page on commons in Firefox and take a look at the response headers of wikibits.js for example. YSlow also complains that the commons logo doesn't have an expires header. There's probably a good reason for that that's beyond me.

Raw files are not currently compressed as they are served directly by the web server, which we have not currently configured to compress them (though we plan to do so).

Any JS served directly out of the wiki gets compressed.

This feature request though was about *obfuscation* for the purposes of making the files smaller; that's something we'll reject regardless of the use or non-use of gzip compression, as it makes debugging and customization much more difficult.

I've updated the summary to clarify.