On 8/10/14 16:48, Patrick McManus wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl <mailto:ann...@annevk.nl>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Patrick McManus <mcma...@ducksong.com <mailto:mcma...@ducksong.com>> wrote: > intermediaries, as I mentioned before, are a big reason. It provides an > opt-in opportunity for transcoding where appropriate (and I'm not claiming > I'm up to speed on the ins and outs of font coding). If the format is negotiated client-side before a URL is fetched, that's not going to help, is it? scenario - origin only enumerates ttf in the css, client requests ttf (accept: woff2, */*), intermediary transcodes to woff2 assuming such a transcoding is a meaningful operation.
Possible in theory, I guess; unlikely in practice. The compression algorithm used in WOFF2 is extremely asymmetrical, offering fast decoding but at the cost of slow encoding. The intent is that a large library like Google Fonts can pre-compress their fonts offline, and then benefit from serving smaller files; it's not expected to be suitable for on-the-fly compression.
JK _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
