- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:50:15 +0200
- To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: "Max Romantschuk" <max@provico.fi>, www-style@w3.org
On Monday, May 10, 2004, 9:27:35 PM, Andrew wrote: AF> Hi, Chris, AF> (don't shoot, I agree that SVG is a best choice from feature set AF> point of view) And flexibility, and image size. But mainly for being already specced, tested and implemented unlike any proposed CSS addition. >> AF> But images for gradient fill are not so good to be compressed AF> effectively. >> >> This is incorrect. Even for raster images, PNG and to an extent JPEG >> are able to compress a vertical gradient well and a horizontal >> gradient moderately well. GIF can't, but, well, its not a very good >> format. AF> I agree. I am using "not so good" which I guess means "good, but AF> not perfect". Good for vertical gradients. Not so good for any AF> other types of gradients. Not true, PNG filtering will do pretty well on a horizontal gradient with the 'difference' filter. AF> PS: Have you seen site of Max Shemanarev AF> http://www.antigrain.com/ and his AF> SVG renderer? AF> Just for your information. I hadn't, thanks for the link. Its a demo of a library, rather than trying to implement much of SVG, but good libraries are scarce and this one has some nice, high quality features. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 16:50:25 UTC