W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Webfont compression

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:38:47 +0000
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20907221738r71e981d5pc8e34afad0af8d33@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Dave Crossland<dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> It is used extremely widely by people who pay bandwidth bills, or are
> in charge of reducing them, but since bandwidth is so cheap for most
> sites these days, its maybe less common than it was...

FWIW, Wikipedia *still* doesn't gzip all its CSS/JS.  I've heard it
claimed this is due to bugs in some old browsers that would have
trouble with gzipped CSS/JS sometimes.  But it's true that a lot of
people just don't know about gzipping.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> I remain unconvinced that server-side compression is a sufficient answer to
> font compression, given that universal availability and ease of use don't
> seem to translate into universal application.

>From a web standards perspective, the correct fix is to get people to
use gzip more for *everything*, somehow.  Such as by asking the major
web server distributors to use better defaults.  If a new format is
going to be created *anyway*, I think it's a no-brainer that it should
include compression by default (or even make it mandatory), provided
the useful data is already non-human-readable.  But lack of
compression by itself is a rather weak reason to push a new format,
IMO, since it doesn't do anything to address the broader underlying
problem here.
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 00:39:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT