- From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:49:39 +0000
- To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Cc: liam@w3.org, robert@ocallahan.org, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
I clearly have something against apng at a subconscious level. Ok... webp mpo jxr j2k apng For compatibility: gif jpeg png svg Yeah, variants should be defined by the spec. Vendor prefixes are ok, eg format('-moz-whatever'). On 19 February 2013 14:07, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > A common abbreviation for "jpeg2000" is "j2k". > Otherwise, you left out "apng" (again :) ) from the list. > > Regarding format variants (such as JPEG with arithmetic coding, currently > not supported by any browser, can provide files that are 10% smaller on > average), will there be some convention for their naming? Will each variant > added require a spec change? > > We should aim to prevent a situation where browsers add their own, > conflicting names for the same format variant. Will we need vendor prefixes > for that? > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Thinking about bmp, tiff, tga, eps again, I'm not sure there's a >> use-case there. True, they're supported by some software (eg Prince), >> but if you're using them you tend to be writing for a specific UA, so >> you don't really need format negotiation. Is that fair to say? >> >> If so, we could stick with the formats likely to be negotiated across >> the web, namely: >> >> webp >> mpo (3d format support by DS browser) >> jxr (jpeg xr, supported in IE) >> jpeg2000 >> >> With the following thrown in for compatibility: >> >> gif >> jpeg >> png >> svg >> >> Jake. >> >> On 18 February 2013 22:07, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 09:50 +1300, Robert O'Callahan 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? >> > >> > Maybe someone at Google or Microsoft would have an answer to that. >> > >> > I'm not aware of any Web browser that handles Tiff natively today, but >> > the format is used in the print world, and likely to grow in the future >> > (unfortunately, since TIFF is a mess). It's the most widely interchanged >> > lossless multi-layer format other than (proprietary) psd -- something >> > needed for printing in colour (typically CMYK layers). I'd be happy to >> > encourage use of something else (MNG?) but there isn't really a >> > substitute right now. >> > >> > BMP is default for Microsoft Paint, or used to be, and one still >> > encounters them sometimes. >> > >> > Liam >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ >> > Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ >> > Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml >> > >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 14:50:12 UTC