meh, it boils down to whatever image format you use, you take a 33% increase in file size cause it's base64 encoded, and then a huge hit cause you can't do fram

meh, it boils down to whatever image format you use, you take a 33% increase in file size cause it's base64 encoded, and then a huge hit cause you can't do frame to frame encoding, like true motion estimation. It's trying (poorly) to solve an already solved problem with bad tech. Different platforms support it horribly differently, it burns cpu power on some (on Firefox, cpu hits 100% when normal web browsing, including youtube, is 10%). The true way to do it is to use modern html5 video tags, which are gonna work anywhere that svg would. Video tags are supported back to IE9, and SVG is only marginally supported in IE9. So the only thing you could gain is not having to use 3 video formats to hit all the browsers, and that's a pitiful excuse.