W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: On use cases, was Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: Brett Jankord <bjankord@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:11:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CALgdvz9K+6rJtJn3gSAM78+L6R_D+9rjfqF87K0HfM82KdJukw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-respimg@w3.org
I would encourage us not to think of a use case depending on if there is
enough WebP usage to support us considering a type attribute, but rather
think of the bigger picture of this use case.

Do developers have a native HTML way to load an image file and fall back to
a supported file if the first file is not supported? If not, how often to
devs try to hack together solutions to use image formats besides .jpg,
.png, or .gif?

I think as "retina" displays start to become more and more common, we will
see a greater need for image formats that either are vector based like .svg
or are highly compressed like .webp. Though there will also be a need to
keep support for older browsers that do not support these image formats.

Hixie mentioned that there is already the object element which does this,
but the object element leaves a lot to be desired. For example, displaying
an .svg in with object element with a nested .jpg img fall-back inside,
both images are downloaded by the user, creating unnecessary overhead.

Another issue with the object tag is lack of a context menu on right click.
I know Chrome supports the context-menu while Firefox does not. This makes
saving images / sharing images an issue without this support.

To me, these are issues the picture element could solve.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 14:12:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 October 2012 14:12:15 GMT