Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Justin Novosad <ju...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Justin Novosad <ju...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > I think this proposal falls short of enshrining. The cost of adding this >> >> feature is minuscule. >> >> >> > >> > I don't think the cost is ever really miniscule. >> > >> >> https://codereview.chromium.org/290893002 > > > That's implementation cost to you :-) > Now we need to convince the other vendors. Do they want it, want more, want > it in a different way?
As an author, I do not see why I should ever want to tell a browser losslessly encoding an image any other quality argument different from „maximum speed“ or „minimum size“ – on a cursory look, anything else would probably not be interoperable. Also, is 0.5 the default value? -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>