On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 07:47 -0700, archil@...3010... wrote:
But, aside some possible Internet Explorer compatibility problems,
*why*
do you think is a good idea?
Regarding the file size optimization, I see your SVG is 19 KB while
the
PNG us 433 KB, using SVG would make for a way smaller total page
size.
Gvirabi's background is a big bulk image and definitely not a good example. Perhaps, this might be a good example for size reduction. It's an icon set and there are too many small objects: http://gvirila.com/launch/images/sprite.svg
On the web you should be serving compressed SVG files. The compressed sprite.svg is 18288 bytes, smaller than sprite.png which is 18833 bytes. If you clean up the SVG (remove the 36 unused definitions and save with the option available in 0.49 to remove unused/redundant/incorrect attributes) it compresses to 14492 bytes. SVG (and XML in general) compresses really well.
Tav