Re: WebP, anyone using it?

On Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM, François REMY wrote:

> | it's to allow devs to specify format types with their images, with  
> fallbacks.
>  
> Isn't the mime-type sufficient in this case? That way you can remain  
> futureproof and avoid to enter the real format debate.

That adds complexity, IMHO… because it means reliance on server side technology:

1. Author declares: <img srcset="small, medium 2x, big 3x">
2. Browser requests image, "medium", with Accepts: list of formats;  
3. Server inspects Accept header, and serves "medium" as, for example, WebP.   
  
(in step 3, some kind of logic is needed on the server to prioritize a format)

Versus, for example:  

<picture>
  <source type="image/webp" srcset="small.wp, medium.wp 2x, big.wp 3x">  
  <source srcset="small.gif, medium.png, big.jpg">

</picture>  

Where the browser chooses they type it supports (e.g., on a first match basis).      
  
--  
Marcos Caceres