The answer is D) WebP is simply not sufficiently better than JPEG to justify implementing it.
https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2013/10/17/studying-lossy-image-compression-efficiency/ We have instead started a project to improve the efficiency of JPEG encoders: https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/ <https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/> With mozjpeg you can get the quality of WebP (and better) without a new format. Thanks, Andreas > On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Well, my days of not using or recommending Firefox are certainly coming to a > middle. ;) > > I was testing webp on my latest project and ended up on this forum after > searching for whether or not Firefox supported it. > > After scrolling through that bug report and a these posting I'm left with > these thoughts: > A) Maybe the code for Firefox is such a mess that it's too hard to add > support. > B) Maybe the right person hasn't seen this feature request or just doesn't > give a !#%$. > C) This is the second thing I've posted on the internet today. Planets must > be aligned funny. > > Guess I better code something to tell any Firefox users to go download Chrome. > _______________________________________________ > dev-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
