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

Why not allow both?
On 7 Oct 2014 13:11, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:

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