Re: Reporting my findings on Action 123 (http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open)

Fantastic, thank you Vlad!  Looking forward to discussing this in the
working group meeting today.  To aid in the discussion, I created an
online spreadsheet along with a chart of the optimization gains.

Vlad's On-Curve Point Optimization Gains
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PA9ssfAdWh2GKhhgStkw0-yiiNAeG1zdfZqRzAVWaXM/edit?usp=sharing

It would be fascinating to see the results of the experiment across
more font collections, esp. to see if any trends/patterns emerged.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
>
> <Rant>
>
> With the Thanksgiving holidays and all travel behind I came back at the
> office to a backlog of over 500 emails in my Inbox. Some folks clearly don’t
> like holidays and prefer to work overtime – I figured that it may be a good
> day to forget about emails and just do something else instead, like e.g.
> exploring on-curve point optimization. J
>
> </Rant>
>
>
>
> Here are the preliminary results (attached) – so far I ran the test only on
> the fonts I have installed on my computer (without prejudice). The numbers
> reported are:
>
> -          total number of all points for all contours defined in a ‘glyf’
> table;
>
> -          number of on-curve points where their coordinates can be
> predicted *precisely* by using the coordinates of two adjacent off-curve
> points (and, therefore, the actual coordinates can be eliminated from the
> pre-processed output by simply using one reserved bit in ‘flags’ field to
> mark the point as “predictable”), and
>
> -          percentage of points that can be predicted, per font.
>
>
>
> As you can see, while individual font results vary significantly, the
> average number of all points that can be predicted [with respective
> coordinates eliminated as redundant info] is about 1.42%. Considering that
> point coordinates may use either one- or two byte formats - the actual file
> size saving is likely to be somewhat smaller, my guess it would yield the
> savings of around 0.7-1% (this statement has not been evaluated by the FDA!)
>
>
>
> Let’s discuss this over email and during the call tomorrow and see if there
> is a desire to do more about it.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vlad
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 19:27:03 UTC