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

Thank you David, the online spreadsheet is a nice tool, I keep forgetting that we can share the data using ways that don't require an installed application suite ;-) When I tried to access the file though it said that the file doesn't exist (yet?) - can you please check into that?

Meanwhile, I've made a few changes to my toy project and extended the collected dataset to count the exact number of bytes saved if we eliminate the coordinates of predictable points. The slightly updated spreadsheet is attached, as you can see each eliminated point consumes on average 3.12 bytes. 

Talk to you all soon,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kuettel [mailto:kuettel@google.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:26 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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
> >
> >