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

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

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:34:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBaDLwF7MGrXg2QuOT5g4yb3t-OZk6nxnQC5sqNfWAvXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
> 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? If not, we shouldn't encourage people to use them by
> supporting them here.
>
>
> The OP request was not to support the formats, it was to identify the
> formats so that loading of unsupported formats could be skipped without an
> http request. So, while I don't expect significant use on the Web, I would
> expect some support for tiff and eps in some non-Web implementations, such
> as Prince or WeasyPrint, perhaps. Maybe even some ePub implementations?
> EPS is very common in professional print production, even for raster images
> (especially for CMYK). So is TIFF.
>

Is that still the case?
I thought PDF pretty much replaced those classic formats. The Adobe
publishing apps have to jump through a bunch of hoops to support EPS
properly. PDF is much easier and more reliable.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 18:34:57 GMT

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