W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 1999

Re: SVG paths vs. Flash paths (Re: XML and Vectors)

From: Michael Gould <mgould@lander.es>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:31:54 +0100
Message-Id: <012401be6bb2$d592c8f0$4da09c93@irobot.uv.es>
To: "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@pythonware.com>, "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
It is my impression that people like SVG (see for example a recent article
in webmonkey at wired.com) is because it's OPEN and directly editable...It's
not an issue (for me at least) of saving a few bytes.

  Michael Gould
  Project ESMI
  Tel. +34 96 364 22 53

----- Original Message -----
From: Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com>
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 12:16 PM
Subject: SVG paths vs. Flash paths (Re: XML and Vectors)

>Jon Ferraiolo wrote:
>>Regarding file sizes, the SVG working group is paying close attention to
>>this issue. A key point to remember is that modern Web servers and browser
>>support gzip compression of Web content. gzip compression does a great job
>>of shrinking down XML grammars (up to 10:1 compression).
>fwiw, I recently made some experiments using an instrumented
>flash decoder.  I've focussed on the vector data representation
>(as the spec says, "many SVG files will be dominated by their path
>data"), and it looks like zip-compressed SVG path data is about the
>same size as the corresponding *uncompressed* Flash shapes.
>> In many cases, SVG files compressed with gzip with be of
>> comparable size with a corresponding Flash file.
>On the other hand, most Flash files also get smaller if you
>compress them...
>Anyway, I plan to run these tests on a larger set of sample files
>this weekend.  Stay tuned.
>Cheers /F
Received on Thursday, 11 March 1999 07:17:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:46 UTC