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

Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:28:11 +0100
Cc: "Peter Gasston" <pgasston@gmail.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>, "David Newton" <david@davidnewton.ca>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E87D3791-2024-4443-9DE1-729ADF862322@matthewwilcox.com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tom@tomlane.me>
Sorry guys, bunch of mails may have appeared on the list - the result of the W3C admins fixing the software to allow addresses starting "mail@" to post. Guess mine were caught in a queue.


On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:32, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:

> This is calssic Chicken & Egg problem. You won't find much evidence of it in use because there's not much support for it. You won't get support for it until there's evidence of it in use.
> 
> The "image type fallback" I proposed was specifically to address this issue. It wasn't about WebP specifically, but about the idea that it's fundamentally a *smart thing* to allow for a mechanism that chooses whatever file-format the current environment happens to support. Because that's the only way to break the chicken-egg cycle problem.
> 
> Right now it's binary: either the browser supports the format and you see a picture, or it doesn't and you don't. That's not tollerable and therefor no-one risks using the new format. Which makes any new format unattractive to implementers.
> 
> -Matt
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 07:28:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 October 2012 07:28:43 GMT