daxterspeed
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
It's disappointing that browser vendors haven't picked up on this and offered a "Save as PNG/JPEG/GIF" option when downloading images, but for now if it seems reasonable that if any user would want to download an image you're displaying then you should probably stick to the legacy formats.
However if you are serving clients with highly restricted bandwidth you're probably going to want extremely cacheable resources (public, immutable) and perhaps even a completely different site architecture.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Ca...
Personally I've opted for "stale only" caching, so everything is served with Cache-Control: max-age=0,must-revalidate and a Last-Modified header and the browser will always make corresponding If-Modified-Since requests. This means significantly more requests per page, even if the responses are mostly 304 Not Modified, but getting to avoid all forms of cache busting makes developing a lot nicer.
71 6f 69 66 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 04 00 | 14 byte header
00 | QOI_OP_INDEX
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 | end marker
Similarly the 103 byte png in the article would be [EDIT] This is incorrect, see below 71 6f 69 66 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 04 00 | 14 byte header
fe b7 d0 d0 | QOI_OP_RGB, RGB color,
fd fd fd fd c6 | QOI_OP_RUN for 62+62+62+62+7
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 | end marker
[0]: https://qoiformat.org/qoi-specification.pdf[EDIT] I realized that we actually run into one of QOI's drawbacks if we were to encode the 103 byte png in the article, as we actually need to repeat the pixel 65535 times, so we'd have floor(65535/62)=1057 QOI_OP_RUN bytes followed by another QOI_OP_RUN to repeat the last pixel. Here it's pretty clear that the QOI spec missed out on special handling of repeated QOI_OP_RUN operators, as long repetitions could have been handled in far fewer bytes.
I'm more afraid of how they'll modify their existing products to manipulate users into paying for "Premium" Getty stock photos over the free Unsplash ones :/
Websites like Google Fonts should absolutely use one of these font proofs for the dedicated font pages - or when simply comparing two fonts, but use a shorter pangram when comparing several fonts at once.
A few minor bugs: - The gray area is always too small, so there's plenty of area of the canvas that never gets cleared. - Perhaps this is intended, or maybe it's caused by by the demo running at 144Hz, but the drone is always swept away by the wind for me. It doesn't even stand a chance to fight it.
I got Everything in a hotkey so it also doubles as an application launcher. It really is quite elegant.
However I do see how these can be useful as a reference point, I especially like the templates/examples that have a little story behind them. Saying no "like a pro" isn't about the exact phrasing, but knowing that you can and often should say no.
Ideally QR codes would have had a segment to encode URIs more efficiently (73-82 characters depending on how the implementation decided to handle the "unreserved marks"), but that ship has long sailed.