This is in follow up to the following bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856375
(In reply to porneL from comment #191) > For example pngquant/libimagequant takes quality setting identical to > libjpeg/cwebp, so you can easily batch lossy compression of millions of PNG > images. This is good news of course, however WebP is already integrated into PHP already, but compressed PNG isn't. So my point still stands - I cannot use this technique in this environment. (In reply to Zach Lym from comment #192) > Facebook trialed WebP but their users rejected it because they > could not share the images with friends using browsers incapable of dealing > with WebP images. This is a valid concern for sites like Facebook and imgur, however for websites focused on presentation rather than user generated content it's not such a big deal if users cannot open images downloaded from the website without first googling for "webm" or waiting until such a time that more consumer apps support the format. > Adding WebP would add yet another defacto-nonstandard-standard to the mix. > Daala being years away from being ready is why it has a real chance of > gaining any acceptance. Even VP9 and HVEC are both going to struggle for > any adoption given the dominance of H.264 and the same is true for WebP vs > Jpeg and PNG. It's like Beta vs VHS or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD: you are battling > over features and specs in a war of market forces. This is nothing like Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD because is isn't a choice between two competing upgrades to a single standard. What we have is an opportunity to replace both PNG and JPEG with one image standard that has the features of both. Now there are absolutely no guarantees that it will take of, and it does mean compiling a little more code, but the potential pay-offs are huge. > To force Apple and IE to accept any new standard requires overwhelming > force, something we have no hope of kindling until the next major > standards/technological refresh. We might as well save our resources for > when we have a chance at winning. This isn't an argument against adoption, it's just statement of fact: when developing websites, Microsoft and Apple browsers will always require workarounds. In this case we would confirm that the browser accepts the image format, and send either a WebP, PNG or JPEG depending on needs. One thing that's been brought up previously was what happens with VP9? I'm trying to find out now if WebP will adopt it, and if it will be backwards compatible with WebP VP8 images. I suspect it would be, if it's adopted. _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
