11–20 of 31 posts
I mean, I am not sure, it will open a can of worms with a lot of problems, but not sure if anyone is trying something in that direction...
This is really one of the worst articles I've seen submitted here lately. I'm truly surprised that it is currently ranked up so high. The presentation of the article is atrocious. The font alone renders extremely poorly in Firefox. It is just plain hard to read. Please just use a common font that will render well basically anywhere. The inline "$3.99 ThanksGiving Offer" ad links peppered throughout the article are di…
> Asking web designers, bloggers, and non-techies to create multiple versions of their images in order to appease every Android, iOS device and desktop browser seems not only like a very non-standards approach, it’s also not a very practical one.
I've never heard of FlashPix, but it seems like just a wrapper around a bunch of variously sized images. The creator still needs to make them and save them or use a program that does it automatically.
And what happens when you request one? You either get them all and download a gigantic file, or the server has to somehow pull out just the part you need.
This problem could be much more easily solved by the extensions to the img tag that allow various src attributes (ignoring the fact that we might not end up with the right one), media queries and using vector formats where possible.
I don't see what a new format would bring to this problem, in the end you only want to send one image to each visitor, so you probably want a server side program that can transform one big image into various smaller size images. You don't actually want to be shifting all the various sizes around as a bundle. (And WebP's real killer feature is lossy-photo + alpha at the same time, that's where there's a real gap in th…
I'm enthusiastic about animation support. It's mind-boggling that we are still using an image format from 80s with crappy compression and limitation to 256 colors.
I don't see what a new format would bring to this problem, in the end you only want to send one image to each visitor, so you probably want a server side program that can transform one big image into various smaller size images. You don't actually want to be shifting all the various sizes around as a bundle. (And WebP's real killer feature is lossy-photo + alpha at the same time, that's where there's a real gap in th…
I'm enthusiastic about animation support. It's mind-boggling that we are still using an image format from 80s with crappy compression and limitation to 256 colors.
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's preferable is if you needed to do a video with an alpha channel. But this is more codec related than a problem with the concept itself.
This is really one of the worst articles I've seen submitted here lately. I'm truly surprised that it is currently ranked up so high. The presentation of the article is atrocious. The font alone renders extremely poorly in Firefox. It is just plain hard to read. Please just use a common font that will render well basically anywhere. The inline "$3.99 ThanksGiving Offer" ad links peppered throughout the article are di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm enthusiastic about animation support. It's mind-boggling that we are still using an image format from 80s with crappy compression and limitation to 256 colors.
What about the tag? I guess it's nice that WebP support animation as well, but that's what the video tag exists for. Shoe-horning in frame-by-frame animation in an image format when you can just use video (or the canvas, if you want to do something key frame based) seems like a bad idea to me. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's preferable is if you needed to do a video with an alpha chann…
It's sad that Mozilla has not included WEBP. I cannot understand why since it seems to be a wonderful format. Maybe they are waiting for all the promised features to deliver. So far I haven't seen working animations or lossy + alpha in Chrome so they probably aren't ready yet.
The reason given (that I could find, it's a pretty verbose bug entry) is that WEBP doesn't support alpha. Sounds like a pretty weird reason to me, but I'm not a Mozilla developer.
I disagree.
HTTP supports cache-able compression, and connection re-use. It wouldn't be any slower to download frames as needed (lazy = good)), using the existing transport protocol. All you need is an ASCII/UTF-8 index file for an animation. Getting browsers to support anything new that doesn't come from the W3C and contain the word "semantic" in the spec on the other hand... That's the hard part.
It's sad that Mozilla has not included WEBP. I cannot understand why since it seems to be a wonderful format. Maybe they are waiting for all the promised features to deliver. So far I haven't seen working animations or lossy + alpha in Chrome so they probably aren't ready yet.
I looked for a bug, and found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919 . The reason given (that I could find, it's a pretty verbose bug entry) is that WEBP doesn't support alpha. Sounds like a pretty weird reason to me, but I'm not a Mozilla developer.
I think the true reason is that evaluating the quality of, and introducing widespread support for, a lossy image format are both really hard problems and Mozilla didn't want to go off half-cocked. Google on the other hand control both ends of the wire and so can see the benefits immediately and as a result are more keen to experiment.
I'm intrigued to see if they do the same with with WebM v2 including VP9 and Opus and just roll it out (in beta even, which makes much more sense for 'disposable' video conferencing use-cases than it does for long-term video storage or Youtube) rather than continue the usual 10-year upgrade treadmill for video codecs.