Is the recommendation to include CSS before JavaScript invalid?
In countless places online I have seen the recommendation to include CSS prior to JavaScript. The reasoning is generally, of this form:
When it comes to ordering your CSS and JavaScript, you want your CSS to come first. The reason is that the rendering thread has all the style information it needs to render the page. If the JavaScript includes come first, the JavaScript engine has to parse it all before continuing on to the next set of resources. This means the rendering thread can't completely show the page, since it doesn't have all the styles it needs.
My actual testing reveals something quite different:
My test harness
I use the following Ruby script to generate specific delays for various resources:
require 'rubygems'
require 'eventmachine'
require 'evma_httpserver'
require 'date'
class Handler < EventMachine::Connection
include EventMachine::HttpServer
def process_http_request
resp = EventMachine::DelegatedHttpResponse.new( self )
return unless @http_query_string
path = @http_path_info
array = @http_query_string.split("&").map{|s| s.split("=")}.flatten
parsed = Hash[*array]
delay = parsed["delay"].to_i / 1000.0
jsdelay = parsed["jsdelay"].to_i
delay = 5 if (delay > 5)
jsdelay = 5000 if (jsdelay > 5000)
delay = 0 if (delay < 0)
jsdelay = 0 if (jsdelay < 0)
# Block which fulfills the request
operation = proc do
sleep delay
if path.match(/.js$/)
resp.status = 200
resp.headers["Content-Type"] = "text/javascript"
resp.content = "(function(){
var start = new Date();
while(new Date() - start < #{jsdelay}){}
})();"
end
if path.match(/.css$/)
resp.status = 200
resp.headers["Content-Type"] = "text/css"
resp.content = "body {font-size: 50px;}"
end
end
# Callback block to execute once the request is fulfilled
callback = proc do |res|
resp.send_response
end
# Let the thread pool (20 Ruby threads) handle request
EM.defer(operation, callback)
end
end
EventMachine::run {
EventMachine::start_server("0.0.0.0", 8081, Handler)
puts "Listening..."
}
The above mini server allows me to set arbitrary delays for JavaScript files (both server and client) and arbitrary CSS delays. For example, http://10.0.0.50:8081/test.css?delay=500 gives me a 500 ms delay transferring the CSS.
I use the following page to test.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>test</title>
<script type='text/javascript'>
var startTime = new Date();
</script>
<link href="http://10.0.0.50:8081/test.css?delay=500" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://10.0.0.50:8081/test2.js?delay=400&jsdelay=1000"></script>
</head>
<body>
<p>
Elapsed time is:
<script type='text/javascript'>
document.write(new Date() - startTime);
</script>
</p>
</body>
</html>
When I include the CSS first, the page takes 1.5 seconds to render:
When I include the JavaScript first, the page takes 1.4 seconds to render:
I get similar results in Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer. In Opera however, the ordering simply does not matter.
What appears to be happening is that the JavaScript interpreter refuses to start until all the CSS is downloaded. So, it seems that having JavaScript includes first is more efficient as the JavaScript thread gets more run time.
Am I missing something, is the recommendation to place CSS includes prior to JavaScript includes not correct?
It is clear that we could add async or use setTimeout to free up the render thread or put the JavaScript code in the footer, or use a JavaScript loader. The point here is about ordering of essential JavaScript bits and CSS bits in the head.
This is a very interesting question. I've always put my CSS <link href="..."> s before my JS <script src="..."> s because "I read one time that it's better." So, you're right; it's high time we do some actual research!
I set up my own test harness in Node (code below). Basically, I:
<head> to execute <body> to execute, which is analogous to DOMReady . Results
First, with the CSS file delayed by 500ms:
Browser: Chrome 18 | IE 9 | Firefox 9
CSS: first last | first last | first last
=======================================================
Header Exec | | |
Average | 583ms 36ms | 559ms 42ms | 565ms 49ms
St Dev | 15ms 12ms | 9ms 7ms | 13ms 6ms
------------|--------------|--------------|------------
Body Exec | | |
Average | 584ms 521ms | 559ms 513ms | 565ms 519ms
St Dev | 15ms 9ms | 9ms 5ms | 13ms 7ms
Next, I set jQuery to delay by 500ms instead of the CSS:
Browser: Chrome 18 | IE 9 | Firefox 9
CSS: first last | first last | first last
=======================================================
Header Exec | | |
Average | 597ms 556ms | 562ms 559ms | 564ms 564ms
St Dev | 14ms 12ms | 11ms 7ms | 8ms 8ms
------------|--------------|--------------|------------
Body Exec | | |
Average | 598ms 557ms | 563ms 560ms | 564ms 565ms
St Dev | 14ms 12ms | 10ms 7ms | 8ms 8ms
Finally, I set both jQuery and the CSS to delay by 500ms:
Browser: Chrome 18 | IE 9 | Firefox 9
CSS: first last | first last | first last
=======================================================
Header Exec | | |
Average | 620ms 560ms | 577ms 577ms | 571ms 567ms
St Dev | 16ms 11ms | 19ms 9ms | 9ms 10ms
------------|--------------|--------------|------------
Body Exec | | |
Average | 623ms 561ms | 578ms 580ms | 571ms 568ms
St Dev | 18ms 11ms | 19ms 9ms | 9ms 10ms
Conclusions
First, it's important to note that I'm operating under the assumption that you have scripts located in the <head> of your document (as opposed to the end of the <body> ). There are various arguments regarding why you might link to your scripts in the <head> versus the end of the document, but that's outside the scope of this answer. This is strictly about whether <script> s should go before <link> s in the <head> .
In modern DESKTOP browsers, it looks like linking to CSS first never provides a performance gain. Putting CSS after script gets you a trivial amount of gain when both CSS and script are delayed, but gives you large gains when CSS is delayed. (Shown by the last columns in the first set of results.)
Given that linking to CSS last does not seem to hurt performance but can provide gains under certain circumstances, you should link to external stylesheets after you link to external scripts only on desktop browsers if the performance of old browsers is not a concern. Read on for the mobile situation.
Why?
Historically, when a browser encountered a <script> tag pointing to an external resource, the browser would stop parsing the HTML, retrieve the script, execute it, then continue parsing the HTML. In contrast, if the browser encountered a <link> for an external stylesheet, it would continue parsing the HTML while it fetched the CSS file (in parallel).
Hence, the widely-repeated advice to put stylesheets first – they would download first, and the first script to download could be loaded in parallel.
However, modern browsers (including all of the browsers I tested with above) have implemented speculative parsing, where the browser "looks ahead" in the HTML and begins downloading resources before scripts download and execute.
In old browsers without speculative parsing, putting scripts first will affect performance since they will not download in parallel.
Browser Support
Speculative parsing was first implemented in: (along with the percentage of worldwide desktop browser users using this version or greater as of Jan 2012)
In total, roughly 85% of desktop browsers in use today support speculative loading. Putting scripts before CSS will have a performance penalty on 15% of users globally; YMMV based on your site's specific audience. (And remember that number is shrinking.)
On mobile browsers, it's a little harder to get definitive numbers simply due to how heterogeneous the mobile browser and OS landscape is. Since speculative rendering was implemented in WebKit 525 (released Mar 2008), and just about every worthwhile mobile browser is based on WebKit, we can conclude that "most" mobile browsers should support it. According to quirksmode, iOS 2.2/Android 1.0 use WebKit 525. I have no idea what Windows Phone looks like.
However, I ran the test on my Android 4 device, and while I saw numbers similar to the desktop results, I hooked it up to the fantastic new remote debugger in Chrome for Android, and Network tab showed that the browser was actually waiting to download the CSS until the JavaScripts completely loaded – in other words, even the newest version of WebKit for Android does not appear to support speculative parsing. I suspect it might be turned off due to the CPU, memory, and/or network constraints inherent to mobile devices.
Code
Forgive the sloppiness – this was Q&D.
app.js
var express = require('express')
, app = express.createServer()
, fs = require('fs');
app.listen(90);
var file={};
fs.readdirSync('.').forEach(function(f) {
console.log(f)
file[f] = fs.readFileSync(f);
if (f != 'jquery.js' && f != 'style.css') app.get('/' + f, function(req,res) {
res.contentType(f);
res.send(file[f]);
});
});
app.get('/jquery.js', function(req,res) {
setTimeout(function() {
res.contentType('text/javascript');
res.send(file['jquery.js']);
}, 500);
});
app.get('/style.css', function(req,res) {
setTimeout(function() {
res.contentType('text/css');
res.send(file['style.css']);
}, 500);
});
var headresults={
css: [],
js: []
}, bodyresults={
css: [],
js: []
}
app.post('/result/:type/:time/:exec', function(req,res) {
headresults[req.params.type].push(parseInt(req.params.time, 10));
bodyresults[req.params.type].push(parseInt(req.params.exec, 10));
res.end();
});
app.get('/result/:type', function(req,res) {
var o = '';
headresults[req.params.type].forEach(function(i) {
o+='n' + i;
});
o+='n';
bodyresults[req.params.type].forEach(function(i) {
o+='n' + i;
});
res.send(o);
});
css.html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>CSS first</title>
<script>var start = Date.now();</script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css">
<script src="jquery.js"></script>
<script src="test.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<script>document.write(jsload - start);bodyexec=Date.now()</script>
</body>
</html>
js.html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>CSS first</title>
<script>var start = Date.now();</script>
<script src="jquery.js"></script>
<script src="test.js"></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css">
</head>
<body>
<script>document.write(jsload - start);bodyexec=Date.now()</script>
</body>
</html>
test.js
var jsload = Date.now();
$(function() {
$.post('/result' + location.pathname.replace('.html','') + '/' + (jsload - start) + '/' + (bodyexec - start));
});
jquery.js was jquery-1.7.1.min.js
There are two main reasons to put CSS before JavaScript.
Old browsers (Internet Explorer 6-7, Firefox 2, etc.) would block all subsequent downloads when they started downloading a script. So if you have a.js followed by b.css they get downloaded sequentially: first a then b. If you have b.css followed by a.js they get downloaded in parallel so the page loads more quickly.
Nothing is rendered until all stylesheets are downloaded - this is true in all browsers. Scripts are different - they block rendering of all DOM elements that are below the script tag in the page. If you put your scripts in the HEAD then it means the entire page is blocked from rendering until all stylesheets and all scripts are downloaded. While it makes sense to block all rendering for stylesheets (so you get the correct styling the first time and avoid the flash of unstyled content FOUC), it doesn't make sense to block rendering of the entire page for scripts. Often scripts don't affect any DOM elements or just a portion of DOM elements. It's best to load scripts as low in the page as possible, or even better load them asynchronously.
It's fun to create examples with Cuzillion. For example, this page has a script in the HEAD so the entire page is blank until it's done downloading. However, if we move the script to the end of the BODY block the page header renders since those DOM elements occur above the SCRIPT tag, as you can see on this page.
I would not emphasize too much on the results that you have got, I believe that it is subjective, but I have a reason to explain you that it is better to put in CSS before js.
During the loading of your website, there are two scenarios that you would see:
CASE 1: white screen > unstyled website > styled website > interaction > styled and interactive website
CASE 2: white screen > unstyled website > interaction > styled website > styled and interactive website
I honestly can't imagine anyone choosing Case 2. This would mean that visitors using slow internet connections will be faced with an unstyled website, that allows them to interact with it using Javascript (since that is already loaded). Furthermore, the amount of time spend looking at an unstyled website would be maximized this way. Why would anyone want that?
It also works better as jQuery states
"When using scripts that rely on the value of CSS style properties, it's important to reference external stylesheets or embed style elements before referencing the scripts".
When the files are loaded in the wrong order (first JS, then CSS), any Javascript code relying on properties set in CSS files (for example the width or height of a div) won't be loaded correctly. It seems that with the wrong loading order, the correct properties are 'sometimes' known to Javascript (perhaps this is caused by a race condition?). This effect seems bigger or smaller depending on the browser used.
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/7152.html上一篇: 是否有可能在一个div内垂直对齐文本？