3 ms·
So... Silly question, perhaps, but how is it possible that we need to replace WOFF already? Didn't we have TTF and OTF for decodes without needing replacement,
by m_eiman 11y ago
So... Silly question, perhaps, but how is it possible that we need to replace WOFF already? Didn't we have TTF and OTF for decodes without needing replacement, and now we need to replace WOFF before it's even used a whole lot? What did the WOFF designers miss?
- jahewson 11y agoWOFF is simply gzip plus a header. This works well for OTF fonts where the format is already heavily optimised for low size. However TTF files don't compress as well, particularly the 'glyf' table whic contains the outlines and typically accounts for a large percentage of the file size. WOFF 2 adds a preprocessing stage which rewrites the glyf table into a more compact format prior to gzipping.
- robryk 11y agoAlso, WOFF2 uses brotli instead of deflate.
- gsnedders 11y agoWOFF was a minimal format that exists primarily for the sake of getting the large font foundries on-board with webfonts — the aims were very low. WOFF2 actually tries to incorporate a lot of the work done since TTF/OTF, some of it patented previously. For example, it includes MicroType Express, which is now covered under the W3C patent policy.