11–20 of 23 posts
Neat. Though for my own sanity, I'd probably use a file extension like .image for URLs that return different content type based on the Accept header. (And leave .png and .webp untouched so I have the option to use those explicitly)
Neat. Though for my own sanity, I'd probably use a file extension like .image for URLs that return different content type based on the Accept header. (And leave .png and .webp untouched so I have the option to use those explicitly)
TBL wrote about this in 1998: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html#remove
As much as I like WebP, the numbers given in this article are misleading. The original image is indeed 52 kb. If you like optimizing PNGs, you can recompress it (losslessly, obviously) to ~49 kb. Now the same image in WebP is 35 kb, not 11 kb. The only way for WebP to make it a 11 kb image is to compress it in lossy mode. Granted, even at 11 kb the image looks really good and there are no visible artifacts but when y…
As much as I like WebP, the numbers given in this article are misleading. The original image is indeed 52 kb. If you like optimizing PNGs, you can recompress it (losslessly, obviously) to ~49 kb. Now the same image in WebP is 35 kb, not 11 kb. The only way for WebP to make it a 11 kb image is to compress it in lossy mode. Granted, even at 11 kb the image looks really good and there are no visible artifacts but when y…
http://css-ig.net/articles/test-webp-021
If you are not using pngq/pngquant and the likes to compress alpha png I advise you to try them out.
As much as I like WebP, the numbers given in this article are misleading. The original image is indeed 52 kb. If you like optimizing PNGs, you can recompress it (losslessly, obviously) to ~49 kb. Now the same image in WebP is 35 kb, not 11 kb. The only way for WebP to make it a 11 kb image is to compress it in lossy mode. Granted, even at 11 kb the image looks really good and there are no visible artifacts but when y…
Lossy plus alpha isn't cheating, its a legitimate gap in the market. It's also the feature that prompted Mozilla to look at the format again.
With JNG those massive parallax websites could be ~1MB instead of ~5MB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lossy plus alpha isn't cheating, its a legitimate gap in the market. It's also the feature that prompted Mozilla to look at the format again.
We had lossy RGBA many years ago with JNG (a simple PNG/JPG mashup format), but Mozilla killed the format along with MNG. The reason was that the MNG lib added about 100kB to the installer. They suggested to use Flash instead. (Yes, seriously.) With JNG those massive parallax websites could be ~1MB instead of ~5MB.
But lossy + alpha was a good idea then and it still is now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had lossy RGBA many years ago with JNG (a simple PNG/JPG mashup format), but Mozilla killed the format along with MNG. The reason was that the MNG lib added about 100kB to the installer. They suggested to use Flash instead. (Yes, seriously.) With JNG those massive parallax websites could be ~1MB instead of ~5MB.
A minority browser giving up on a fringe image format is hardly first degree murder. More like giving up on CPR after it clearly wasn't helping. But lossy + alpha was a good idea then and it still is now.
In case you didn't know, there are 3 very important browsers: Chrome, Firefox, and IE. Right now, Firefox got around 20%, IE around 30%, and Chrome around 40%.
There are also a few countries where Firefox is the most popular one. For example, in Germany it currently got around 45%.
>a fringe image format
Was PNG any different? People usually don't randomly start to use some image format if it isn't supported by any browser.
Also, ripping two images out of one file and splicing them together requires very little code. In a high-level language it's maybe 50 lines of code. There are many games which do that. It's very simple and it saves typically around 80%.
Neat. Though for my own sanity, I'd probably use a file extension like .image for URLs that return different content type based on the Accept header. (And leave .png and .webp untouched so I have the option to use those explicitly)
In URLs, and especially user-visible URLs, file suffixes at all should be considered an only occasionally necessary evil. They’re ugly, redundant, brittle, and generally a headache. TBL wrote about this in 1998: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html#remove
(That might be called a browser bug, actually; it'd sure be nice if browsers on these OSes could take the observed media type and tack on an extension to extensionless files on Save As to ensure they'll be viewed by the OS to have that same media type. Or it might be called an OS bug: why the heck don't filesystems have a required media-type metadata field for files yet!? ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A minority browser giving up on a fringe image format is hardly first degree murder. More like giving up on CPR after it clearly wasn't helping. But lossy + alpha was a good idea then and it still is now.
"Minority browser"? What's that supposed to mean? Anything other than Chrome? Or, if we go back a few years, anything other than IE? In case you didn't know, there are 3 very important browsers: Chrome, Firefox, and IE. Right now, Firefox got around 20%, IE around 30%, and Chrome around 40%. There are also a few countries where Firefox is the most popular one. For example, in Germany it currently got around 45%. >a f…
Interesting to see Hixie in there advocating for MNG (or, rather, for a format with 8-bit alpha and animation that's not Flash).