- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:48:53 +0100
- To: Dave Landers <landers@boulder.vni.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Dave Landers wrote: > > Hi, > > I may have missed something, but it looks like the <image> element > is set up to XLink to external images. Yes > That is good, but I feel > there should also be some facility for inline (non-external) images. Difficult to do without hugely bloating the file size. > If images are always separate, then the graphics containing both > images and vector elements will rely on multiple documents, data > streams, files, etc. Yes. > I am evaluating SVG with the objective of using it as a graphics > file and interchange format: saving graphics to a file as well as > transmitting them between programs via a data stream. If I must > save and organize multiple files or transmit multiple, independent > streams, then I have more issues (that are unrelated to the graphics) > than I really care to deal with. The Web has been using multiple files since its inception. HTTP/1.1 deals with multiple requests over a single stream. > I am thinking that the <image> object should allow inline content > (similar to what is done in PostScript, for example), or maybe it > should be able to reference an inline image that is defined in a > <defs> section. Both these tend to produce large files. Base64 encoding a compressed raster image still produces a very large file compared to the original compressed image. Performance will suffer. -- Chris > > Thanks. > > -- > Dave Landers > Senior Software Engineer > Visual Numerics, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 1999 16:48:52 UTC