Pecandu Internet Profesional • Penggemar Game • Kreator Teknologi
Pecandu Internet Profesional • Penggemar Game • Kreator Teknologi

Cara menyimpan gambar sebagai variabel JavaScript lalu di tag gambar

Berikut adalah cara untuk menanamkan gambar dalam HTML dan CSS untuk mengurangi jumlah permintaan HTTP!
Halaman ini telah diterjemahkan dari bahasa Inggris oleh para intern AI saya yang sangat termotivasi demi kenyamanan Anda. Mereka masih belajar, jadi mungkin ada beberapa kesalahan yang terlewat. Untuk informasi yang lebih akurat, silakan lihat versi bahasa Inggris.
Rumah Blog Cara menyimpan gambar sebagai variabel JavaScript lalu di tag gambar

Harap dicatat bahwa postingan blog ini diterbitkan pada Juli 2011, jadi tergantung kapan Anda membacanya, beberapa bagian mungkin sudah kedaluwarsa. Sayangnya, saya tidak selalu dapat memperbarui postingan ini secara lengkap untuk memastikan keakuratan informasinya.

    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:

    Ditulis oleh Special Agent Squeaky. Pertama kali diterbitkan 29-07-2011. Terakhir diperbarui 29-07-2011.

    📺 Tonton video terbarunya dari Squeaky!

    Cara Menambahkan Subtitel Waktu Nyata yang Sederhana untuk Siaran Langsung Anda