https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54030
Jarry1250 <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Jarry1250 <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #4) > > I did a little research on this a couple years back and found that many SVGs > used in articles are things like maps that contain WAAAAY more detail than > they > need, and would be much slower to transfer and render client-side than the > bitmaps. > > So either we need to start tracking down and cleaning up those giant SVG > maps, > or we gotta keep a server-side renderer around for some time. :( Two additions: * Way more detail *for a 250px thumbnail*. Sometimes, the details make sense if you're viewing the image full screen. So mere cleanup still may not be sufficient. * At least with a PNG renderer, you only have to 'fix' the SVG to work with that renderer. If you provide native SVGs, you get all kinds of browser-based differences. This has got a lot better though (as all cross-browser issues tend to). If you have a user preference for native SVG vs. PNG, then you get the same issue. Regards, PhantomJS, I guess it would work. The only things that come to mind is (a) transparency support (b) i18n support (bug #32987) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
