Re: Compressed SVG? (and a couple of announcements)

These numbers are to be expected.  The more data you have the better the compression.

However, it also is going to mean that a renderer is going to have to expand the ENTIRE thing into memory (or equivalent) in order to access a single glyph - which isn't a great solution for mobile (or other resource constrained) devices.    I would favor the slight larger size of individual compression to allow random access.

Leonard

From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com<mailto:behdad@google.com>>
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 1:36 AM
To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com<mailto:sppatel@adobe.com>>
Cc: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Compressed SVG? (and a couple of announcements)
Resent-From: "public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>" <public-svgopentype@w3.org<mailto:public-svgopentype@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 1:37 AM

I did this now.  With svgo run on each SVG, the total uncompressed byte size is 2620229.  With each SVG gzipped separately, total byte size is 1191653.  Tar.gz'ing the optimized SVG as a whole (similar to WOFF-compressed table) takes 954862 bytes.

How do we move forward from here?

Robert, Jonathan, are you willing to support this in Firefox?

Thanks,
behdad