On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:08 AM, <emmanuel@engelhart.org> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:56:56 +0200, Volker Haas wrote:
> We at Pediapress have developed a prototypical epub export for the
> collection extension.
>
> I just generated epub and zim files for the following collection:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:American_History
>
> The epub and zim files should contain the same images and otherwise
> the
> same content.
>
> http://pediapress.com/files/epubvszim/book.epub
> http://pediapress.com/files/epubvszim/book.zim
>
> Regarding filesize they are both pretty similar:
>
> book.epub 21.589.212 bytes
> book.zim 23.500.867 bytes
>
> I can't say anthing about file access times for epub but will my
> phone I
> have no performance problem when viewing the epub file.

To the opposite of my test, your benchmark is done on a small content.

For small amount of data, I think this does not really make sense to
compare.
From the user point of view this should be similar (file size & opening
speed).

That's why, in such use case, EPUB has currently a big advantage over
ZIM: a lot of devices support it.
So EPUB should be for small collection of content and ZIM for big one.

But I still wonder that the ZIM file is bigger than the EPUB.
ZIM should be in most of the cases (except maybe for really small
"book" with only a few pictures) smaller and faster than EPUB.

I have done a new one (by unzipping the EPUB file) and got a file
smaller (~5%) than your EPUB:
20.907.051 bytes

I remarked that your book.epub has almost 20% less entries (908: unzip
-l book.epub | wc) than your book.zim (1071: zimdump -l book.zim | wc).
This seems to me strange and this could maybe explains why your ZIM
file is bigger than your EPUB.

Emmanuel

_______________________________________________
Offline-l mailing list
Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l