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

Re: SVG comment - inline images?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:29:09 +0100
Message-ID: <36D1B005.5B50B7B7@w3.org>
To: Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >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.
> hey, you're basing a graphics format on XML and then you
> worry about an extra 33% increase? ;-)

There are a number of unwarranted assumptions there:

1) assumes binary formats are always more compact than xml
2) assumes that tag bloat is as significant as raster-inclusion bloat
3) assumes raster compression is only 66%

> could be wise to focus on whether this is a useful feature or
> not (fwiw, I think it is).  

It is not particularly useful nor a clear-cut advantage. It defeats
cacheing and hinders reusability, both of which increase percieved
response time.

> if file size is critical, Flash is a much
> better choice...

I would love to see the comparative figures from which you draw this

Received on Monday, 22 February 1999 19:23:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:53:47 UTC