Re: JPEG 2000 (was: Multiple image files?)

The recent image file comparison conducted by Mozilla regarding WebP inclusion did not even involve JPEG 2000.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856375#c147

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/9NKc7OeEFLM

File size and image quality are an important aspect but this study did not take progressive rendering nor data stream flexibility to offer responsive (or hierarchical as it was called in the JPEG specs) capabilities in account.

Regards
-- 
Frédéric Kayser


Jason Grigsby wrote:

> This seems like a question for the browser vendors (John? Tab?). I'm assuming JPEG 2000 has been considered. What was the result of that consideration?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eduardo Marques <ebmarques@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, those are ***THE*** keywords for the solution we need(!!!):
> 
> > With every client requesting just the bytes it needs from the full-res
> source file.
> 
> Simple as that. Not less, not more than that.
> The challenge is: How to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> From: lists@ericportis [mailto:lists@ericportis.com]
> Sent: sexta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2013 16:33
> To: Frédéric Kayser
> Cc: public-respimg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 (was: Multiple image files?)
> ...
> With every client requesting just the bytes it needs from the full-res
> source file.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> +1 (503) 290-1090 o | +1 (503) 502-7211 m | http://cloudfour.com