|WebP support||David Bruant||4/8/13 2:09 AM|
(I'm not 100% sure this is the proper mailing list to ask this question, but I can't think of a more relevant mailing-list at this time. Please forward if inappropriate)
After a long period of reluctance, Mozilla is deciding to implement WebP . The only explanation I have been able to find was:
"We decided to re-open this based on new data that shows that WebP has valid use cases and advantages."
Is there a longer explanation somewhere? If possible one where Mozilla previous concerns are addressed.
|Re: WebP support||Jeff Muizelaar||4/8/13 4:06 AM|
|Re: WebP support||Ralph Giles||4/8/13 9:53 AM|
On 13-04-08 4:06 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:I think the concern is that none of that re-evaluation has been on a
public list or bug I've seen. Can you clarify what Andreas meant by,
"new data that shows that WebP has valid use cases and advantages" in
|Re: WebP support||Jeff Muizelaar||4/8/13 10:02 AM|
Sure. Everything.me was seeing large gains when using lossy image compression with an alpha channel compared to png. This isn't a surprise but it's a use case that's not well supported by the current image formats we support.
|Re: WebP support||Ralph Giles||4/8/13 10:08 AM|
On 13-04-08 10:02 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:At least not since we removed jng support? :)
Thanks for clarifying!
|Re: WebP support||Andreas Gal||4/8/13 11:13 AM|
I assume all this data/reasoning will be posted in the bug. People
just didn't get around to it yet. The idea was to use the bug to
discuss the issue. There is definitely no decision yet to ship, just a
decision to take a look at some additional data point someone raised.
Sent from Mobile.