- From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:49:11 -0400
- To: Adam Twardoch <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, w3-style@boblet.net, www-style@w3.org
On 7 May 2009, at 13:58, Adam Twardoch wrote: > Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: >> Adam, this is a brilliant idea. A significant part of EOT is the >> font-specific lossless MTX compression, and the reason MTX >> compression is on average 30% better than generic zip is because >> the compressor optimizes the source data, and separates and groups >> different types of data in a font into three separate data blocks (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-MTX-20080305/ >> ). The first block contains all the metrics and layout data, and >> can be decompressed and used for page processing while other two >> blocks containing glyph information are downloaded. Not only the >> fonts will be downloaded twice as fast because you have less data >> to download, you can process the page layout while the significant >> chunk of glyph data is being downloaded. > > Excellent. I was not even aware that a "streaming-like"/"progressive" > structure of EOT is already part of the spec, but I agree that this > fact > makes a compelling argument supporting the claim that in many cases, > EOT > is a much better choice for web font use than TTF or OTF. Isn't the MTX compression format used in EOT patented, which might be considered an obstacle to general adoption? Or has this already been satisfactorily resolved through some kind of free and universal license? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 18:50:26 UTC