- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:42:25 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Cc: Paul Nelson <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com> (ATC), Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 28, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> We do not attempt to optimize for the case of bitwise identical >> font files loaded from different URLs - I am not sure this would be >> worth it. > > The reason I make a case for it is that > > a) font files tend to be larger than other types of linked files, so > minimizing the number of times the identical font has to be > transmitted is important, Is that really the case? This page on a popular web app serves me a 130k image, 60k of markup, 80k of CSS, and 500k of script: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/othermaciej/62682052/ >. These are rough counts from using the Activity window in Safari on an uncached load. Many of the fonts on my Mac OS X Leopard system range from 32k to 600k. These do not seem big compared to normal web resources. The very biggest fonts I see (with really wide unicode repertoires and lots of CJK glyphs) are around 15M. These are closer to the size of a video or large PDF. With fonts of that size one would likely want to reduce the glyph repertoire to only include glyphs for needed scripts before serving. It seems to me the font size concern may be overblown. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 10:43:09 UTC