- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:36:51 -0400
- To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Patrick Garies<pgaries@fastmail.us> wrote: > * I'm also curious if a format like *.7z would also work since it compresses > way better than ZIP does. Unfortunately, I don't know if you can read and > extract individual files from that format. Supporting ZIP would be great just because authors can so easily create it, no special tools needed. If an *additional* format like 7-Zip with better compression were supported, that would be nice too, if the decompression time remains acceptable even on very low-end hardware (e.g., cell phones). .tar.bzip2 is the other obvious choice. > * Of course, there's also the million dollar question: What is the > likelihood that a browser vendor would implement such a thing? That's what this list is meant to determine. :) This particular scheme seems more suited to discussion by the HTML WG, though -- I imagine it could still be added to HTML 5 at this point if there were enough support by implementors. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > Of course if there's a better compression format more amenable to > use here, that would be nice too. I'm not sure there's an obvious > candidate. I don't think Windows supports the creation of any compressed archive format out of the box except ZIP. At least not as of XP. On the other hand, it's not the *end* of the world if Windows authors have to download a free third-party tool like 7-Zip to create the archive. 7-Zip can create things like .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 as well as .7z, IIRC, and so can plenty of others. Windows users are used to downloading free third-party tools for everything anyway. :)
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 14:37:35 UTC