Adicto profesional a Internet • Entusiasta de los juegos • Creador de tecnología
Adicto profesional a Internet • Entusiasta de los juegos • Creador de tecnología

Cómo almacenar una imagen como variable de JavaScript y luego en una etiqueta de imagen

¡Aquí hay una forma de incrustar imágenes en HTML y CSS para disminuir la cantidad de solicitudes HTTP!
Esta página ha sido traducida del inglés por mis altamente motivados pasantes de IA para su comodidad. Aún están aprendiendo, por lo que es posible que se hayan pasado por alto algunos errores. Para obtener la información más precisa, consulte la versión en inglés.
Hogar Blog Cómo almacenar una imagen como variable de JavaScript y luego en una etiqueta de imagen

Tenga en cuenta que esta entrada del blog se publicó en julio de 2011, por lo que, dependiendo de cuándo la lea, algunas partes podrían estar desactualizadas. Lamentablemente, no siempre puedo mantener estas publicaciones completamente actualizadas para garantizar que la información siga siendo precisa.

    Storing an image (or any other content type) in JavaScript (or CSS) is done by specifying a special URI scheme for data. Basically what you do is to create a normal JavaScript String object using a specific format, where you specify the content type, character encoding and the data encoded as a base64 string.
    A simple example would be:
    A simple example
    Resulting in one HTML page with an embedded image.
    Preview image
    Viewing the page with Firefox with the YSlow plugin.
    Compression overview

    Increased file size

    Obviously converting raw binary data to a base64 format will increase the data size. To compare the sizes I extracted the JavaScript image variable to an own JavaScript file on the disk, and then compared the original image file against the newly created JavaScript file.
    File comparison
    The original image is around 25.5 KB large while the base64 version is around 34 KB. The data size was increased with around 33.3%.
    Encoding other various files I got the following results:
    • 7.45 KB to 10.2 KB - 36.9%
    • 5.19 KB to 7.10 KB - 36.8%
    • 93.2 KB to 127.0 KB - 36.2%
    • 257.0 KB to 350.0 KB - 36.1%
    • 48.0 KB to 64.3 KB - 33.9%
    • 457.0 KB to 642.0 KB - 40.4%
    • 601.0 KB to 821.0 KB - 36.6%
    Based on these figures a typical base64 encoding increases the data size with around one third (36%) of the file size. However, this size can of course later be decreased by using GZIP compression.However, this size can of course later be decreased by using GZIP compression.

    Browser compatibility

    According to several sources, the Data URI scheme are only supported in modern browsers, really starting from Internet Explorer 8 and forward (Internet Explorer 7 does support it, but with some heavy constraints).
    As an experiment uploaded my test page and used Browsershot to give me a screen shot of the page from 65 different browsers on various operating systems.
    65 different combinations of browsers and operating systems.
    Browser screenshots
    As displayed above, it works on Firefox 3.6+, Chrome 9.0+, Safari 3.2.3+, Opera 9.54+ and Internet Explorer 8+. But not in Internet Explorer 6 or 7. However, there is an alternative solution available for those browsers as well.

    Is Data URI scheme a good or a bad idea?

    I won't cover this question in this blog post. However if you are interested here are some links that highlights the advantages and the disadvantages:

    Escrito por Special Agent Squeaky. Publicado por primera vez el 29 de julio de 2011. Última actualización: 29 de julio de 2011.

    📺 ¡Mira el video más reciente de Squeaky!

    Cómo agregar subtítulos simples en tiempo real a tu transmisión en vivo