W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: gzip vs. mtx compression ratios

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: Joseph Felps <jfelps@gmail.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Message-ID: <25911921.449521246352562119.JavaMail.root@cm-mail01.mozilla.org>

As suggested by several folks, tried LZMA.  Great stuff!

For basic webfonts like Arial, Georgia, etc. MTX compression is 8-14% better than LZMA but for Cleartype fonts LZMA is dramatically better than MTX, the MTX compressed version is larger by 30-40% for some of these fonts.  Likewise, CJK fonts for the most part seem to compress better:

  MS Gothic (Japanese)
  raw:  8,272,028
  gzip:	4,441,566	
  eot:  4,276,642
  lzma: 2,958,214  (36% of original!)

Updated spreadsheet:

  http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rKT_wNzraVrkXQcKSWb-jTA&output=html

Cheers,

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Felps" <jfelps@gmail.com>
To: www-font@w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:59:12 PM GMT +09:00 Japan
Subject: Re: gzip vs. mtx compression ratios

What about also looking at LZMA for comparison.  Average compression
ratio is 30% better than gzip: http://tukaani.org/lzma/ .

There is also some benchmarks comparing gzip, bzip2, and lzma.
http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 09:03:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:01 GMT