-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Jared Williams
Sent: 16 September 2008 16:31
To: 'Wikimedia developers'
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] SVG conversion options -- rsvg vs Inkscape?
-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nikola
Smolenski
Sent: 16 September 2008 15:35
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] SVG conversion options -- rsvg vs
Inkscape?
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jared Williams
<jared.williams1(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> See no reason why svg isn't precompressed with gzip, and
given a svgz
extension.
It's still 188K gzipped. The 22x13px PNG used in
[[Bethlehem]] is 300
bytes, close to 1000 times smaller. Some way to
compress SVGs
*lossily* is clearly needed here.
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.
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 :)
Not sure. Obviously working out the most effiecient
stylesheet for a given svg, removing repeated style
attributes would be one area. But might effect the
editability of the image. It could be like trying to edit a
minified javascript file.
Producing a smaller SVG thumbnail of a SVG image would
definitely be possible. Looking at Flag_of_Mexico, almost all
the coordinates have several decimal places, so could reduce
the accurancy of those in a smaller image without loosing anything.
Jared
Actually seems a SVGCrush is in progress..