On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, ericzen wrote: >> Anyway, why I'm asking is that there's a way to encode images in URLs so >> that they can be embedded into [X]HTML, but the method wasn't designed for >> large images and there's an open question of whether all XML parsers can >> handle such long attributes. With 788 bytes I'm estimating a URL of 1074 >> bytes which is probably safe & justifiable... > > If you used base64, sizes could be disgustingly huge. What technique were you >thinking of using?
:-) base 64 is, I think, required, and the 788->1074 corresponds to the base64 expansion + the "data:image/png;base64," header. References? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt or follow this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2000Aug/0011.html Frank Francis James Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] `Medium atomic weights are available: Gold, Lead, Copper, Jet, Diamond, Radium, Sapphire, Silver and Steel. `Sapphire and Steel have been assigned...'
