- From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:33:18 +0000
- To: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 15 February 2013 11:37, Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com> wrote: > I would rather see: > > jpeg-xr > png-anim > > than "jxr" and "apng". I went for jxr & apng because they're separate formats rather than a feature of jpeg/png that has limited support. Eg, if we were pitching this in the days before IE7 I'd be suggesting png-alpha so browsers could explicitly flag they support png with an alpha channel. I don't have strong views here though. > also, since mpo, jpeg-2000 and jpeg-xr are all supported by only one client > each, there's I think they can be left out of a 'critical' set, Isn't that the use-case? Being able to do format('png') is pretty much redundant as we expect png to be supported by all user agents. I wouldn't expect to see format('png') in production code, but we should include it in the list because format('png') shouldn't fail. format('webp') format('mpo') format('jxr') etc are useful because they're web-friendly formats that have patchy support across browsers. background: image('whatever.mpo' format('mpo'), 'whatever.jpg'); ...gives a 3d experience to browsers that support it, but doesn't flat-out fail in browsers that don't. Didn't realise jpeg2000 was supported in Safari. It should be in the list.
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 14:33:52 UTC