- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:43:43 -0800
- To: "Joel N. Weber II" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
- Cc: "Walter Ian Kaye" <walter@natural-innovations.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Joel N. Weber II wrote: > You still haven't answered my question: if you strip the preview from > the encapsulated postscript and gzip it, how will the size compare > to a binary CGM? CGM might still be a win, but it won't be as drastic. I thought I answered that well enough in the comment about binary PostScript. Oh, well. It's 8k vs 1.5k. Or, to put it another way, the zipped, previewless PS is more than 5 times as large. The zipped CGM is 1.36k. This is really a meaningless comparison. This logo is quite simple, and could probably have been hand-coded into an EPS file of less than 2k. The logo was drawn in CorelDRAW!, which inserts a general function dictionary into the EPS header. A more sophisticated export filter would tailor the function dictionary to the drawing, and in that case a zipped EPS wouldn't be so much larger than a CGM. David Perrell
Received on Sunday, 8 December 1996 19:48:52 UTC