On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> 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? If not, we shouldn't encourage people to use them by supporting them here. >> >> The OP request was not to support the formats, it was to identify the formats so that loading of unsupported formats could be skipped without an http request. So, while I don't expect significant use on the Web, I would expect some support for tiff and eps in some non-Web implementations, such as Prince or WeasyPrint, perhaps. Maybe even some ePub implementations? EPS is very common in professional print production, even for raster images (especially for CMYK). So is TIFF. > > Is that still the case? > I thought PDF pretty much replaced those classic formats. The Adobe publishing apps have to jump through a bunch of hoops to support EPS properly. PDF is much easier and more reliable. It is where I work, although I think the EPS files might also contain code to allow opening as a PDF or something. But we export EPS from photoshop in CMYK frequently, and it includes a preview image for faster rendering in InDesign. We mainly use TIFF for one bit images, as they are easy to colorize (even in spot colors) in programs like InDesign. This is mostly done by other people where I work now, so I may be a little rusty on the details.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:21:10 UTC