Re: wherefore CGM?

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:43:43 -0800


Message-Id: <199612090048.QAA00059@greece.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: "Joel N. Weber II" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
Cc: "Walter Ian Kaye" <walter@natural-innovations.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:43:43 -0800

Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> You still haven't answered my question: if you strip the preview from
> the encapsulated postscript and gzip it, how will the size compare
> to a binary CGM?  CGM might still be a win, but it won't be as
drastic.

I thought I answered that well enough in the comment about binary
PostScript. Oh, well. It's 8k vs 1.5k. Or, to put it another way, the
zipped, previewless PS is more than 5 times as large. The zipped CGM is
1.36k.

This is really a meaningless comparison. This logo is quite simple, and
could probably have been hand-coded into an EPS file of less than 2k.
The logo was drawn in CorelDRAW!, which inserts a general function
dictionary into the EPS header. A more sophisticated export filter
would tailor the function dictionary to the drawing, and in that case a
zipped EPS wouldn't be so much larger than a CGM.
 
David Perrell