- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Joseph Felps <jfelps@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
As suggested by several folks, tried LZMA. Great stuff! For basic webfonts like Arial, Georgia, etc. MTX compression is 8-14% better than LZMA but for Cleartype fonts LZMA is dramatically better than MTX, the MTX compressed version is larger by 30-40% for some of these fonts. Likewise, CJK fonts for the most part seem to compress better: MS Gothic (Japanese) raw: 8,272,028 gzip: 4,441,566 eot: 4,276,642 lzma: 2,958,214 (36% of original!) Updated spreadsheet: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rKT_wNzraVrkXQcKSWb-jTA&output=html Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Felps" <jfelps@gmail.com> To: www-font@w3.org Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:59:12 PM GMT +09:00 Japan Subject: Re: gzip vs. mtx compression ratios What about also looking at LZMA for comparison. Average compression ratio is 30% better than gzip: http://tukaani.org/lzma/ . There is also some benchmarks comparing gzip, bzip2, and lzma. http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 09:03:24 UTC