- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:04:49 -0700
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 13:47 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> wrote: > > > I have not been able to find any *quantification* > > of the supposed practical benefits of MTX when > > compared to other available, generic compression > > methods (e.g., bzip2 or gzip with blocking to allow > > some semblance of random access). > > I am not going to dig back through the entire thread to date to find it > (and, for the record, I really do not appreciate your starting multiple > new threads on a topic long gone into dead horse territory) but > Vladimir Levantovsky posted exactly the numbers you are asking for a > couple days ago. I recall 10-30% additional compression relative to > gzip. Searching the archives for obvious terms I can not find the message you refer to. In isolation, the phrase "10-30% additional compression relative to gzip" is ambiguous. It might mean an insubstantial difference, it might mean a substantial difference. I'm not sure what "dead horse" you refer to. I thought EOT was a dead horse but that's become unclear in the recent threads. I see that Mozilla regards MTX as a dead horse but I see Vlad not agreeing. I started new threads because the over-use of the "new work" thread has diminished its utility, in my opinion. -t
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 21:05:30 UTC