> A real food-delivery page - markup, images & an SVG animation in one .hmml, 30% smaller than the same page as base64
Why the comparison with Base64 when Base64 itself has approximately 33% size overhead?
Why the comparison with Base64 when Base64 itself has approximately 33% size overhead?
You have 2 options.
- Embed images into html (base64, size overhead)
- embed html/css/js into media binaries
.hmml is the packing strategy for option two. 2kb js for encode/decode. And extra rantings around what a 'digital image' is
$ head -c 1000000 /dev/urandom | base64 -w0 | gzip | wc -c
1009042
$ head -c 1000000 /dev/urandom | base64 -w0 | zstd | wc -c
1000300
Then the other question is why this proposed packed format is better than the dozen already existing formats like Web Archive, CHM, MAFF, MHTML, etc.
- Save the page as a self-extracting ZIP file, see https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/Polyglot-HTML-ZIP-PNG
.hmml might be more hassle free then zip options for web apps. With zips, I think it will require more js bundle & processing to work.
meanwhile with .hmml, its already gzip/br compressed in cdns, and decoded natively by the browser