전문 인터넷 중독자 • 게임 애호가 • 기술 창작자
전문 인터넷 중독자 • 게임 애호가 • 기술 창작자

이미지를 JavaScript 변수로 저장한 다음 이미지 태그에 저장하는 방법

HTTP 요청 수를 줄이기 위해 HTML과 CSS에 이미지를 포함하는 방법을 소개합니다!
이 페이지는 여러분의 편의를 위해 열정적인 AI 인턴들이 영어에서 번역한 것입니다. 아직 학습 중이므로 몇 가지 오류가 있을 수 있습니다. 가장 정확한 정보는 영어 버전을 참조하세요.
블로그 이미지를 JavaScript 변수로 저장한 다음 이미지 태그에 저장하는 방법

이 블로그 게시물은 2011년 7월에 게시되었으므로, 읽는 시점에 따라 일부 내용이 최신이 아닐 수 있습니다. 안타깝게도 정보의 정확성을 보장하기 위해 게시물을 항상 최신 상태로 유지할 수는 없습니다.

    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:

    Special Agent Squeaky님이 작성했습니다. 최초 게시일 2011-07-29. 최종 업데이트일 2011-07-29.

    📺 스퀴키의 최신 영상을 시청하세요!

    라이브 스트림에 간단한 실시간 자막을 추가하는 방법