On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu> wrote:
Philosophically, it shouldn't be done. Someone
might want to print a
Wikipedia article on a building, and the 500K flag would then look just
right.
When most people have gigabit downlinks from the Internet, I think
this will be an entirely feasible position. :) Until then, we have
to compromise.
Pragmatically, if you don't care about printing
articles on buildings
and are ready to lossily compress SVGs, there is no particular need to
use SVG when PNG will do.
Otherwise, the idea of lossily compressing SVGs is very interesting, and
I believe it could be done :)
I think the best way to lossily compress SVGs is, yeah, just to
convert to PNG. I'd like to see anyone get the level of detail of
that Mexican flag in an SVG displayed at 22x13px . . . that's 300
bytes in size. When you're talking about very low resolutions, even
very crude vector images are almost certainly going to describe much
more detail than is useful.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Opting for producing a cached PNG thumbnail in the
example given (tiny
flag images) as is done at present is likely suitable when the page is
explicitly asking for a tiny thumbnail. Send the full SVG for the
printed stylesheet, maybe.
I don't think there would be any way to send different images based on
stylesheets.
Anyway, this is kind of off-topic, as far as rsvg vs. Inkspace goes.