FLIR vs sIFR

I have used sIFR (Scalable Inman Flash Replacement) in the past to achieve the variety of typography that is seen in desktop publishing. Now there is another library called FLIR. Like sIFR, it uses JavaScript to replace headings and other text with the desired font face, but instead of replacing it with a Flash object, FLIR uses PHP+GD to create an image of the text.

I haven’t used FLIR yet, but in theory it sounds like a better solution than sIFR:

• Easier to setup (fewer files to modify, no creation and messing with SWF file).
• Same level of accessibility as sIFR (ALT text in the images).
• More compatibility than sIFR (images vs. Flash). This goes back to the way fonts were done in 1996, but automates it for you.
• No ad-block message. This is a minor point, because most people don’t have Firefox + the AdBlock extension and it is intended behavior, but if you have a lot of sIFR objects, all those “block” tags do get a little annoying.

Of course, FLIR requires that the server is running PHP & GD — not a problem for most servers, but may not work on all hosts.

The only disadvantage I see is background color. So far I haven’t seen how well (if at all) FLIR works against non-white backgrounds. (Also, sIFR does not have perfect background handling.)

Bandwidth may be an issue — each FLIR image is unique and takes up more space compared to a single SWF loader object. But I think moderation is the key; sIFR can also slow down a page if you have more than 10 blocks or so.

I have seen this idea mentioned in the past, but haven’t come across a readymade library until now. What do you think?