- From: Pankaj Kamthan <kamthan@cs.concordia.ca>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:02:11 -0400
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- CC: kamthan@cs.concordia.ca
Hi, It seems my making some content available on the site (http://indy.cs.concordia.ca/svg/) started the hoopla about "SVG and File Size." SVG AND INDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS/GENERALIZATIONS I have not seen or made claims stating that SVG files will ALWAYS be smaller. Furthermore, just because files 1,2,3 are large does not imply that file n will also be, and otherwise. Not all GIF images made shown on the site are in their actual size. They were reduced in some cases to fit the corresponding page. Mentioning this fact was not deemed necessary as the purpose was to illustrate different USES of SVG and NOT to prove its viability (which has already been done very well, several times in this mailing list by Chris/Jon, in the SVG specification, and other places) or to benchmark it. (I have removed all explicit links to corresponding GIFs that were there for downloading purposes to avoid any possible confusion.) Regarding the issue of SVG file size, for instance, the SVG files in the "Data Visualization" section (which are not toy examples) result in a reduction of 1/10 or better when zipped. As Paton has pointed out, there are various (other) ways of reducing the file size further. In conclusion, sweeping statements and generalizations about SVG will only lead to over/underexpectations setting people off to a wild goose chase, or discourage them from using it. Examples of such statements are: SVG is a revolution, SVG is here to replace all other graphic standards, SVG is the best format for all graphics work, SVG files are always smaller, always accessible, and so on. The issue of advantages/limitations of any mechanism is always relative, context-based, subject to appropriate deployment, and should be weighed against one's own priorities. Pankaj Kamthan
Received on Thursday, 21 October 1999 07:02:46 UTC