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

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

From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:49:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJ5xic8bhxzahcAa2o9+jNL-ne93dgEiJ7LgB1iOJTftcmyCXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: liam@w3.org, robert@ocallahan.org, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
I clearly have something against apng at a subconscious level. Ok...

webp
mpo
jxr
j2k
apng

For compatibility:
gif
jpeg
png
svg

Yeah, variants should be defined by the spec. Vendor prefixes are ok,
eg format('-moz-whatever').

On 19 February 2013 14:07, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
> 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 14:50:12 GMT

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