- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:24:58 +0100
- To: ddailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- CC: SVG List <www-svg@w3.org>
ddailey wrote: > > Understood. Does it deserve a revisit in light of the billion+ instances > of legacy content though? Maybe it's not a big issue, but the footprint > of a GIF unpacker is maybe less of a concern now? Apart from animation, it doesn't add anything, and animation should be done using SVG mechanisms, in SVG. For a very long time the two mass market uses of GIF have been animation and for material that is much better represented in vector formats (also small icons). Greyscale imagery is something of a specialist area. (Most cases where PNG might be used are also better done in vector format - although I see a trend in PDF to using less vector imagery and more DCT (i.e. JPEG), which is my point about user ignorance, as the imagery is often business or science graphics.) This isn't so much about what browsers actually do as what authors can assume. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 06:25:32 UTC