- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:49:15 +0200
- To: Kenji Baheux <kenjibaheux@google.com>
- CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello Kenji, Thursday, August 22, 2013, 8:59:55 PM, you wrote: > Fil: next step is to have a spreadsheet covering all our fonts with > different algo and summarize our findings. Large window flate is 16% > higher, our current Brotli is a bit smaller (13%) but we are > confident that we can brought this number down some more. > Raph: this is just important to get a sense of where things are going. > Vlad: which font was used? > Fil: this is for the whole directory > Chris: comparison with WOFF 1? > Raph: should not be hard to beat > Fil: don't have it but could have something by dinner time Is it dinner time yet? More seriously, a comparison with uncompressed and with woff 1.0 (or failing that, just with gzip) would be a very useful data point. Trying to get close to what LZMA would have provided is an interesting bar, but for "should we do this at all" the relevant comparison is improvement over WOFF 1.0. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 13:50:02 UTC