3 ms·

"We hope that this format will be supported by major browsers in the near future, as the smaller compressed size would give additional benefits to mobile users,

"We hope that this format will be supported by major browsers in the near future, as the smaller compressed size would give additional benefits to mobile users, such as lower data transfer fees and reduced battery use." Is this the same story everytime that G. invents something, implements it in Chrome and then gains advantage, because takes it as standard and other browser hadn't implement it yet?

lorenzhs 11y ago
No, this was first proposed for inclusion in Firefox two years ago: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/CBhSPWs3HS8 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform... This wasn't developed and deployed in secret. According to the comments in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559, the GitHub repository has been public since at least November 2014. You may not like Google, but insinuating evil plans every time they do something cool isn't helping anyone.
- dchest 11y ago
  Also, it's used in W3C Draft Standard for WOFF2 fonts: http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/
mhandley 11y ago
There doesn't seem to be any technical downside to implementing it and likely significant upside. It's Apache-licensed which grants both copyright and patent rights that cover the code. The spec is published as a Internet Draft, scheduled to become an Informational RFC. What's not to like? I'm not one to drink the Google kool-aid, but seriously, what else would you like Google to do?
ahoge 11y ago
Firefox's Brotli support is already done. Chrome's isn't. By the way, new features are generally created this way. They are added to browsers way before they are standardized. You see, convincing the other browser vendors isn't easy. You need very compelling arguments. Take WebP, for example. It provides massive benefits. Especially if you can use lossy RGBA instead of PNG32 (easily 80% smaller). And yet, Mozilla shows little interest in implementing it.

lorenzhs 11y ago

No, this was first proposed for inclusion in Firefox two years ago: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/CBhSPWs3HS8 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform... This wasn't developed and deployed in secret. According to the comments in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559, the GitHub repository has been public since at least November 2014. You may not like Google, but insinuating evil plans every time they do something cool isn't helping anyone.

dchest 11y ago
Also, it's used in W3C Draft Standard for WOFF2 fonts: http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/

mhandley 11y ago

There doesn't seem to be any technical downside to implementing it and likely significant upside. It's Apache-licensed which grants both copyright and patent rights that cover the code. The spec is published as a Internet Draft, scheduled to become an Informational RFC. What's not to like? I'm not one to drink the Google kool-aid, but seriously, what else would you like Google to do?

ahoge 11y ago

Firefox's Brotli support is already done. Chrome's isn't. By the way, new features are generally created this way. They are added to browsers way before they are standardized. You see, convincing the other browser vendors isn't easy. You need very compelling arguments. Take WebP, for example. It provides massive benefits. Especially if you can use lossy RGBA instead of PNG32 (easily 80% smaller). And yet, Mozilla shows little interest in implementing it.