W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Some comments on <image>

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:24:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4C96FE3A.1040409@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: ddailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
CC: SVG List <www-svg@w3.org>
ddailey wrote:

> 
> Understood. Does it deserve a revisit in light of the billion+ instances 
> of legacy content though? Maybe it's not a big issue, but the footprint 
> of a GIF unpacker is maybe less of a concern now?

Apart from animation, it doesn't add anything, and animation should be
done using SVG mechanisms, in SVG.  For a very long time the two mass
market uses of GIF have been animation and for material that is much
better represented in vector formats (also small icons).  Greyscale
imagery is something of a specialist area.  (Most cases where PNG might
be used are also better done in vector format - although I see a trend
in PDF to using less vector imagery and more DCT (i.e. JPEG), which is
my point about user ignorance, as the imagery is often business or
science graphics.)

This isn't so much about what browsers actually do as what authors can
assume.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 06:25:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:46 GMT