- From: David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:29:15 -0700
- To: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
As the early compression improvement results for the major font collections are all in (thank you everyone!), we had an opportunity to review the results in the last Web Fonts Working Group meeting. The results (esp. average, median) are largely consistent (within a few percent) across all of the collections, which is a great thing. In general we are seeing 20-26% compression improvements for TrueType, and 12-13% for CFF. As the compression difference between the two (TrueType and CFF) largely boils down to the extra preprocessing for TrueType files, we discussed this further in the working group meeting. In the original proposal, Raph summarized the impact of the preprocessing step and included graphs (see the following document): http://wiki.font-compression-reference.googlecode.com/git/img/WOFFUltraCondensed.pdf As a follow on to the discussion this week, I gathered the raw data (compression improvement breakdown) for the Google Fonts collection: WOFF 2.0 Compression Improvement Breakdown https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvcH1ZzSrGMGdE9wYUtialItdU5hbmx4WVN4b3hHcWc#gid=0 And a summary of the breakdown: Prep LZMA Combined Average 14.45% 11.96% 26.40% Median 13.75% 8.76% 25.01% Stdev 5.35% 9.27% 7.59% Min 3.67% 1.63% 12.60% Max 32.24% 53.11% 60.66% While not represented in the Google Fonts collection, it's worth noting that we have seen even larger compression improvement numbers using LZMA for some fonts. For example, Vlad and I were recently looking at a font with a really large KERN table. LZMA compression was extremely effective in compressing it, resulting in a 90%+ compression improvement for this font over WOFF 1.0.
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 22:30:03 UTC