W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css4-images] Add format() hints to image()

From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:07:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CACj=BEi=Nb=JdrgE5_5cOcWh4GSONWApR_EV9aTgDd78B0NTGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
Cc: liam@w3.org, robert@ocallahan.org, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
A common abbreviation for "jpeg2000" is "j2k".
Otherwise, you left out "apng" (again :) ) from the list.

Regarding format variants (such as JPEG with arithmetic coding, currently
not supported by any browser, can provide files that are 10% smaller on
average), will there be some convention for their naming? Will each variant
added require a spec change?

We should aim to prevent a situation where browsers add their own,
conflicting names for the same format variant. Will we need vendor prefixes
for that?


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thinking about bmp, tiff, tga, eps again, I'm not sure there's a
> use-case there. True, they're supported by some software (eg Prince),
> but if you're using them you tend to be writing for a specific UA, so
> you don't really need format negotiation. Is that fair to say?
>
> If so, we could stick with the formats likely to be negotiated across
> the web, namely:
>
> webp
> mpo (3d format support by DS browser)
> jxr (jpeg xr, supported in IE)
> jpeg2000
>
> With the following thrown in for compatibility:
>
> gif
> jpeg
> png
> svg
>
> Jake.
>
> On 18 February 2013 22:07, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 09:50 +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > mpo (3d format support by DS browser)
> >> >
> >> bmp
> >> >
> >> tiff
> >> > eps
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is there any significant use of these formats on the Web, or any reason
> to
> >> start using them?
> >
> > Maybe someone at Google or Microsoft would have an answer to that.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any Web browser that handles Tiff natively today, but
> > the format is used in the print world, and likely to grow in the future
> > (unfortunately, since TIFF is a mess). It's the most widely interchanged
> > lossless multi-layer format other than (proprietary) psd -- something
> > needed for printing in colour (typically CMYK layers).  I'd be happy to
> > encourage use of something else (MNG?) but there isn't really a
> > substitute right now.
> >
> > BMP is default for Microsoft Paint, or used to be, and one still
> > encounters them sometimes.
> >
> > Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> > Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
> > Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 14:07:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT