- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:29:09 +0100
- 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 conclusion. -- Chris
Received on Monday, 22 February 1999 19:23:27 UTC