- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:37:16 +0100
- To: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tom@tomlane.me>, Peter Gasston <pgasston@gmail.com>, David Newton <david@davidnewton.ca>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Matthew Wilcox 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. Not quite. This is why I used PNG as a historical example. IE had 90% of the browser market when PNG was trying to take off, and it still managed to win in the end. > 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. But this assumes there is a chicken-egg cycle problem. I'm still looking for someone to stand up and say, in all honesty, "I have tried to use these formats on my site and this is how I did it". > 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. Again, I point to PNG as a counter example. Also, as has been pointed out, Chrome and Opera support WebP (the format is not relevant, btw) - yet we don't see significant interest from developers (that has been presented as evidence here). And there are millions of phones that support WebP.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 14:37:46 UTC