W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: (fonts) MTX skepticism

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:04:49 -0700
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <1246050289.6003.45.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 13:47 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> wrote:
> 
> > I have not been able to find any *quantification*
> > of the supposed practical benefits of MTX when 
> > compared to other available, generic compression 
> > methods (e.g., bzip2 or gzip with blocking to allow
> > some semblance of random access).
> 
> I am not going to dig back through the entire thread to date to find it
> (and, for the record, I really do not appreciate your starting multiple
> new threads on a topic long gone into dead horse territory) but
> Vladimir Levantovsky posted exactly the numbers you are asking for a
> couple days ago.  I recall 10-30% additional compression relative to
> gzip.


Searching the archives for obvious terms I can
not find the message you refer to.   In 
isolation, the phrase "10-30% additional compression
relative to gzip" is ambiguous.  It might mean
an insubstantial difference, it might mean a 
substantial difference.

I'm not sure what "dead horse" you refer to.
I thought EOT was a dead horse but that's become
unclear in the recent threads.  I see that Mozilla
regards MTX as a dead horse but I see Vlad not
agreeing.   I started new threads because the over-use
of the "new work" thread has diminished its utility,
in my opinion.

-t
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 21:05:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT