current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges
tour help
stack overflow careers
Sign up ×
Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free.
up vote 24 down vote favorite
7

Google PageSpeed often suggests to optimize CSS delivery. It occurred to me that it would reduce network round trips to inline all the CSS like this: 

<style type="text/css">

    @{ 
        var bootstrap = File.ReadAllText(Server.MapPath("bootstrap.min.css"));
        var bootstrapTheme = File.ReadAllText(Server.MapPath("theme.min.css"));
        var fontAwesome = File.ReadAllText(Server.MapPath("font-awesome.min.css"));
        var bigfont = File.ReadAllText(Server.MapPath("bigfont.min.css"));
        var bigfontPrint = File.ReadAllText(Server.MapPath("bigfont-print.min.css"));
    }

    @Html.Raw(bootstrap)
    @Html.Raw(bootstrapTheme)
    @Html.Raw(fontAwesome)
    @Html.Raw(bigfont)
    @Html.Raw(bigfontPrint)

</style>

This seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem of slow page loads and has increased my PageSpeed score to 95 from 88.

Putting code-style aside for the moment, what technical reasons, if any, exist for NOT in-lining all CSS in this way?

share|improve this question
2  
Well see this is why i made the disclaimer. I assumed you were somehow talking about adding all the css as strings to a c# program since that was a tag and i am totally ignorant here. Oops? Im sure someone who understands what your talking about will have a better answer. –  Ben Knoble yesterday
3  
Interesting question. The same could be done for JS as well, no? @BenKnoble, he's saying the CSS is put inline programatically, so you'd still edit resource files the same way. –  Orun Bhuiyan yesterday
2  
@OrunBhuiyan Yes. This is what I am thinking. It's done brilliantly for my page load. I am at 99/100 for mobile and desktop. –  Shaun Luttin yesterday
4  
So PageSpeed ignored that fact that you stuffed few hundred kilo bytes of CSS in your page. Weird. –  Salman A 23 hours ago
6  
This seems like a bad idea. The CSS is never cached. In addition, shoving extra kB of data before your content is sure to make your page load slower. You could argue that link does this, however, link could be, at some point by some vendor, cause the linked files to be loaded asynchronously. You could never do that with CSS content shoved into your HTML page. There's a reason script tags are delegated until last - the same logic applies to all content –  A Red Herring 22 hours ago

4 Answers 4

up vote 43 down vote accepted

Inlining all your CSS means it cannot be cached, so every single page load will contain all of the CSS required, and when you are using large libraries that can really be a lot of wasted bandwidth. For example, Bootstrap is around 120k. Note the Google link you shared specifies the following (emphasis mine):

If the external CSS resources are small, you can insert those directly into the HTML document, which is called inlining.

So a single page load may be faster but overall it's likely to be slower.

Personally I would stay away from doing that. However, one thing you can do is bundle all of your CSS into a single request (you are using MVC so that is relatively simple) so you only have to do a single extra trip to the server for your CSS and all future pages requested by the browser will not need to ask for them again.

share|improve this answer
2  
With that logic it will never cache the CSS to begin with. –  Martheen yesterday
3  
As with any sort of metric, it;s important to understand the drawbacks. For webpage speed testing, i tend to use webpagetest.org as the tests it runs tend to be more "real world". –  DavidG yesterday
2  
or use HTML/2... once good support for its "bundling" feature is implemented –  小太郎 yesterday
7  
@ 小太郎, you mean HTTP 2 –  ysdx 22 hours ago
2  
It's also worth remembering that generally things tend to get bigger as projects continue much more often than they get smaller. It's sadly much more common for what was once 5 lines of CSS to become 50 than for what was 50 lines to become 5. As such it can be worth either just assuming that much of the small code will become large (and so should be a separate resource) or else at least keep an eye on when they grow to consider if they should be moved. –  Jon Hanna 18 hours ago
up vote 5 down vote

No one has mentioned the intended use case for this technique, which is definitely not to load 100% of your css. Rather, this technique is meant to make users think the page has loaded faster.

When we discuss making pages load faster, the real goal is generally to make the page load seem faster. From the perspective of the user experience, this is much more important than actually making the load take less time. It doesn't matter if the whole page take 500ms to load, because a human can't parse it that quickly anyway. What matters is how quickly the page appears to have loaded.

So the appropriate usage of this technique is to load, immediately, the absolutely essential css to make the page render properly. That is, there are some css rules that make the images be the right size, that make things float correctly, that avoid that horrible appearance of page content jumping around the page while the facebook SDK finishes its business. That code needs to be present in the same instant the markup is loaded. Solution: inline that critical css.

But definitely DO NOT inline all of the css. There can be another 100kb that loads later, if that css only styles content that is loading asynchronously anyway. But if there is page structure that must be in the correct form after 25ms, that css should be inlined.

share|improve this answer
up vote 4 down vote

This is too long to fit in a comment. There where I work, we use Content Security Policy header directives (specifically style-src) to explicitly prohibit the use of inline CSS. The rationale not to use inline CSS in this case is minimizing the risks of CSS injection for pages created dynamically. OWASP has detailed information about this topic, including exploit samples: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Testing_for_CSS_Injection_(OTG-CLIENT-005). If only static content is served to the browser, there should be no risk.

share|improve this answer
up vote 3 down vote

You misunderstood the PageSpeed suggestion. The recommendation is for small CSS files:

If the external CSS resources are small, you can insert those directly into the HTML document, which is called inlining. [...] Keep in mind if the CSS file is large, completely inlining the CSS may cause PageSpeed Insights to warn that the above-the-fold portion of your page is too large via Prioritize Visible Content.

Now, even if PageSpeed gives you a decent score after inlining large CSS files* it might still be a bad idea:

Redundancy

Inline CSS files means you duplicate the <style>...</style> tag across pages. This means you serve redundant data for subsequent or repeat page views. The redundant data costs bandwidth and increases download time.

Separate CSS file along with strong caching headers allow you to eliminate redundancy. Caching headers instruct the browsers to cache the CSS file on first page view and reuse on subsequent or repeat page views.

Content vs Data

Inline CSS files reduce the proportion of "actual" content on the page. Inline CSS files require you to insert the CSS above the content while most of us strive to put the actual content near the top HTML.

Inline CSS will also cause the browser to download additional bytes before allowing it to download other resources such as JavaScript and images.

Compression Cost

If your HTML page is generated dynamically then, most likely, it will be served uncompressed. Some servers (e.g. IIS) and software (e.g. Wordprsss) allow compression of dynamic content but requires more CPU + Memory compared to compression of static content (e.g. CSS files). This is yet another reason why you should keep CSS in separate file.

For the above reasons I would keep my CSS combined, minified, compressed and cached, in a separate file, even for one page websites.

* Not to be confused with inline styles

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.