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

RE: (fonts) MTX skepticism

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:05:58 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2924EF3@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
Please see my reply to one of your previous posts on this thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0427.html
where I provided quantification you were looking for. On average MTX
gives you 30-35% gain in compression efficiency over gzip. You can
easily conduct very similar experiment yourself using gzip and WEFT (if
you want to independently confirm these results).

Regards,
Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Lord
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:45 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: (fonts) MTX skepticism
> 
> 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).
> 
> Reading some of the rationales given for adopting
> MTX, I wonder if it isn't essentially a proposal to
> make a gratuitously different format, in order to
> break inter-operability between Web UAs and other
> programs.
> 
> Without solid evidence that the compression advantages
> are real and sufficiently substantial, MTX should be
> rejected as an attempt to form a Recommendation that
> gratuitously damages document-exchange interoperability.
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 27 June 2009 17:06:30 GMT

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