File talk:Heart.svg

Note about this image
It really should be converted back to a PNG, and allow me to state my reasoning.
 * 1. In 32-bit PNG format (though you could probably get away with using 8-bit too), the file would actually be smaller.
 * 2. It has support for virtually all browsers- the same cannot be said of SVG format, especially when we get to talking about Internet Exploder.
 * 3. Here's the clincher- SVG. That stands for Scalable Vector Graphics. This format is designed to allow images to be created using vectors, which makes them not only easily scalable (hence, Scalable Vector Graphics)... and eliminates pixels entirely. Which means it's garbage for pixel art, and especially so for an image that only consists of 81 pixels.

Converting this back to PNG would not only make things considerably easier on anyone who may need to modify this file at some point, but also just makes a lot more sense. This is a tiny pixel art image, not a large smoothed image, which is what the SVG format is designed for.

So basically, there's absolutely no benefit from converting to SVG, only a nightmare with getting the "pixels" aligned right (as is clearly shown if you look in the file's history) and several unnecessary KB.

And have a direct filesize comparison.


 * SVG: 3-4KB, roughly
 * PNG: 257B

So, for the record, the PNG is smaller by well over a factor of ten.

--Henix Aurorus –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.16.25.203 (talk)&#32;21:42, 25 September 2013‎(UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * 1. This file is only 155B when viewed at the default size (194B at double size, how it's normally used)
 * 2. The file is never viewed as an SVG. It's always rendered to a PNG.
 * 3. We want it scalable.
 * –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do realize how useless scalability is on pixel images.

When you're dealing with pixel images, there is absolutely no difference between SVG scalability and PNG scalability- they're pretty much identical. As for the filesize part, I was specifically referring to the actual filesize for the file itself, which is considerably larger than it should be as a PNG. Sure, the difference is tiny, but it's still there. As for the rendering, do realize that browsers that don't like SVGs are still going to bitch about it because, yes, it's rendered as a PNG, but it still uses the .svg extension (which causes a number of problems on it's own).

Seriously, there's absolutely no point to be putting this in an SVG- it's just a waste of disk space (even if the difference is admittedly negligible), effort, and time.

And allow me to repeat myself real quick so you get the point: '''Scaling an SVG to double size and scaling a PNG to double size would look exactly the same on an image like this. Seriously.''' There is no point to having a pixel image like this be scalable, because it's still going to be pixelated regardless. So effectively, using SVG format for this is completely pointless. 108.16.25.203 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Upscaling a PNG requires some sort of interpolation, especially if the scaling factor isn't a power of two, so no, they wouldn't be exactly the same. If you look at where this image is used, it's intended to be scaled to arbitrary sizes; doing that with a PNG would need a larger source image, which would take up far more disk space than the SVG. Even if MediaWiki didn't render it as a PNG, every modern browser supports SVG, so compatibility isn't an issue. -- Orthotopetalk 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)