On Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:22:37 UTC-4, Romain Failliot wrote: > Oh and now that I can post messages again (I don't know why, Google Groups > was just keeping throwing errors at me), here is what I wanted to post when > they devs blocked the bug comments: > > > > Hi! > > > > Since it's the second time a bug is closed to comments on the subject of > WebP, and we've been encouraged to open a new thread here, I'm doing it. > > > > So there are a lot of facts, I'll try to sum them up. > > > > Pros: > > ----- > > * Alpha transparency > > * Lossy compression > > * Better results than JPEG > > * Animation > > * Open source > > * Backed by Google > > * Already supported in Chrome and Opera > > * Used in known web sites and apps like Facebook and Netflix > > * Web developers show a great interest in this format > > > > Cons: > > ----- > > * Not _that_ better than JPEG > > * Yet another non-standard image format > > * Maybe another incoming format is better (JPEG-XT, lossypng, mozjpeg, Daala, > ...) > > > > Benches: > > -------- > > * http://frdx.free.fr/png_vs_webp.htm > > > > Articles: > > --------- > > * Ars Technica: > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/chicken-meets-egg-with-facebook-chrome-webp-support/ > > * mozjpeg: > https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/03/05/introducing-the-mozjpeg-project/ > > * WebPJS: http://webpjs.appspot.com/ > > > > Bugs: > > ----- > > 600919: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919 > > 856375: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856375 > > > > My opinion: > > ----------- > > I think Mozilla is doing it wrong. Internet is organic and even though they > shouldn't implement all the possible formats in the world, they should at > least implement formats that are demanded by their users. In the end, it's > also possible to remove support for a format (and it will provoke as much > trolls in the bugtracker anyway). > > It makes three and a half years now that WebP has been entered in the > bugtracker, and Mozilla still has the same "wait-and-see" attitude that is > becoming quite frustrating in the end. > > I don't know why it's not listed in the popular bugs > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=productdashboard.html&product=Firefox&bug_status=open&tab=popularity) > but just the second bug (#856375) arrives in second position in term of > number of votes and also in term of number of watchers (apparently also in > term of comments). > > > > So I agree with the Mozilla devs that are against WebP: WebP isn't the > ultimate best solution for the far future. But it's a damn good right > solution for today's problems. > > > > Thanks for reading me until here. > > Creak
None of the proposed alternatives to webp are a good choice as a replacement for gif. HTML video could file the role, but don't we want an image format that can handle animation? Only drawback is that there'd be no cue of animated file before clicking/rendering. We encountered this with apng a few years ago. gif screams "this is and animation". Maybe an ugly-named .awebp file could fulfill that role. _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
