On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@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@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.