Re:The feature supported in IE6, but not Chrome
by lutusp on Thursday August 23, 2012 @02:12PM
(#4423962)
A tempest in a teapot.
1. A modern graphic file is already maximally compressed.
2. Given (1) above, an effort to compress the file further can only make it bigger (one of the paradoxes of misapplied compression).
3. So the decision to reject gzipped graphics is wise -- it educates inexperienced programmers in a subtle point about compression technology, more or less by force.
The above is true -- take a file composed of supposedly random numbers (or byte values). A good measure of the file's randomness is the inability of a well-written compression algorithm to make it smaller.
By contrast, a measure of the redundancy (of exploitable content repetitions or patterns) in a file is the degree to which it can be compressed, the ratio of its compressed versus uncompressed size. In my experience, political speeches tend to be very compressible.
1. A modern graphic file is already maximally compressed.
2. Given (1) above, an effort to compress the file further can only make it bigger (one of the paradoxes of misapplied compression).
3. So the decision to reject gzipped graphics is wise -- it educates inexperienced programmers in a subtle point about compression technology, more or less by force.
The above is true -- take a file composed of supposedly random numbers (or byte values). A good measure of the file's randomness is the inability of a well-written compression algorithm to make it smaller.
By contrast, a measure of the redundancy (of exploitable content repetitions or patterns) in a file is the degree to which it can be compressed, the ratio of its compressed versus uncompressed size. In my experience, political speeches tend to be very compressible.