On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Jonathan Kew <j...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> If I'm reading bug 948856 correctly, the difference may have been somewhat > less (150ms? comment 17) when the font was inlined in the CSS using a data > URI, rather than loaded from a separate file > > If we can't afford that, then we still need some other solution here. > Maybe we should investigate that 150ms performance difference further, and try to reduce it? Seems to me it wouldn't be hard to build a toy page that uses some fonts with embedded data: URIs, measure its load performance, and identify chunks of the profile related to font loading/rendering. AFAIK no-one's really tried to optimize this case and there's probably some low-hanging fruit. Jonathan, B2G doesn't share user font instances across apps (assuming 1 app per process) in any way, right? And it doesn't share rasterized glyphs across processes either? I'm wondering what extra costs there are of using a user data: URL font are vs referencing a system font. I guess usually the system font gets mmaped so it's already in memory without having to do any loading, conversion or decompression. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
