Skip to content

[Icons] Docs: Adding info on enduser performance #2787

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ThomasLandauer
Copy link
Contributor

@ThomasLandauer ThomasLandauer commented May 28, 2025

Q A
Bug fix? no
New feature? no
Docs? yes
Issues Closes #2782
License MIT

Page: https://symfony.com/bundles/ux-icons/current/index.html#performance

Info is taken from #2782 (comment)

Comment on lines +459 to +462
When including the same icon multiple times on one page, the same string (SVG content)
is inserted repeatedly in the HTML source. However, since most icons are small (just a few
hundred bytes), this overhead is negligible in most cases (especiall wthen proper
transfer encoding like e.g. gzip is enabled).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The UX Icons component is a PHP one, that does generates HTML.

Do you think on twig documentation, you'd write "every time you include a partial, it is included" ?

:)

@smnandre
Copy link
Member

I'm personally voting against this change (for the reasons explained in the original issue and here)

  • this is not something that solves a real need to me
  • .... and instead gives importance to something that has none for 99.9% of users

Let's see if other have a different opinion

@kbond
Copy link
Member

kbond commented May 29, 2025

I'm against it also, I'm concerned this could scare users off. With modern browsers/compression/http2, I'm not convinced this is a real issue. We originally (pre-release) had a "deferred" feature to fix this "issue" but I saw numbers that showed it was nothing but a micro-optimization.

@ThomasLandauer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see that you have strong opinions.

So just take what you think is useful, and close/delete the rest.

@smnandre
Copy link
Member

smnandre commented Jun 2, 2025

We're always open to improvements

Recent suggestions felt a bit mixed --some very valid points, others less aligned with concrete user needs or going against points we've already covered.

Thanks again for your time and input!

@smnandre smnandre closed this Jun 2, 2025
@ThomasLandauer ThomasLandauer deleted the patch-4 branch June 2, 2025 11:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Icons Status: Needs Review Needs to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Icons] Explain client side performance
4 participants