- From: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:14:06 -0500
- To: public-respimg@w3.org
On 10/15/12 11:08 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM, David Newton wrote: > >> The point about it being controversial is definitely true, though. I think if we're going to include anything about formats, we have to tread carefully. > > I don't see any need to talk about any particular format, but to simply acknowledge that there are other formats. However, if we have no proof at all that anyone is using any of the other formats (apart from gif, jpg, svg, and png), then this is not a valid use case (in the sense that no one is "using" this "case"). I'm not sure that's relevant. Just because no one is using WebP now (assuming that's the case; I don't honestly know) doesn't mean they won't in the future. The markup format itself shouldn't care about formats. It should just acknowledge that "oh wait, browser X doesn't support format Y" is a situation that should be accounted for and the logic for what a browser should do in that case should be defined. We already know from audio/video that case does exist, and there's no reason to believe that it will never happen for images (unless we never create another image format again, which is quite unlikely), so it's a use case that should be handled. --Larry Garfield
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 16:14:35 UTC