Re: Notes from the f2f meeting in Portland

Correct, we would want to gather WOFF 1.0 vs. WOFF 2.0 (w/ Brotli)
comparison numbers.

For reference, here are the earlier numbers that we gathered for WOFF 1.0
vs. WOFF 2.0 (w/ LZMA):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2013Jun/0006.html

Once the tools have been updated w/ Brotli, we would want to gather the new
numbers.

Thank you.


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Kenji,
>
> Thursday, August 22, 2013, 8:59:55 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Fil: next step is to have a spreadsheet covering all our fonts with
> > different algo and summarize our findings. Large window flate is 16%
> > higher, our current Brotli is a bit smaller (13%) but we are
> > confident that we can brought this number down some more.
>
> > Raph: this is just important to get a sense of where things are going.
>
> > Vlad: which font was used?
>
> > Fil: this is for the whole directory
>
> > Chris: comparison with WOFF 1?
>
> > Raph: should not be hard to beat
>
> > Fil: don't have it but could have something by dinner time
>
> Is it dinner time yet?
>
> More seriously, a comparison with uncompressed and with woff 1.0 (or
> failing that, just with gzip) would be a very useful data point.
> Trying to get close to what LZMA would have provided is an
> interesting bar, but for "should we do this at all" the relevant
> comparison is improvement over WOFF 1.0.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
>
>
>