Le Jeu 9 septembre 2010 15:32, Alex Hudson a écrit : > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 15:05 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Le Jeu 9 septembre 2010 14:29, Alex Hudson a écrit : >> > .TTF fonts (as an example) just aren't very big. I tried a sample font >> > in my .fonts directory, it's 75K and five lines of varied "The quick >> > brown fox.." in PNG format comes out at 25K. If I gzip the ttf, it's >> > 28K, and the png goes to 22K. So the data size is actually pretty close. >> >> The google type library is not representative as they do not propose full >> fonts but fonts cut down to the few hundreds of glyphs necessary for latin. >> The smallest the font the closest the size will be to a preview file. > > I wasn't using the Google Type library for that comparison - I was using > a system font (although one of the fonts I tested (Inconsolata) is > available in Fedora as well as on Google). So this argument doesn't > apply. Inconsolata has even less coverage than Google Type Library fonts. The author is still working to complete all the latin blocks and has not started non-latin blocks. The completed part is very nice, but not very extensive. >> > So, I disagree it's "as resource intensive" as the RPM method. It's >> > fundamentally much faster than installing the font locally. Seriously, >> > just try it. It's not even in the same league. >> >> It's more resource-intensive server-side and the whole speed depends on your >> network pipe. > > How can this possibly be true? Both servers are offering files to > download; one is offering JS + TTF the other is offering RPM. As I've > shown, the data is essentially the same size. It's only the same size for very small fonts with few glyphs. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
