3 ms·

Interesting. I would've thought they wouldn't support it anymore, considering there's an even smaller chance that Apple and Microsoft would support it, too. I w

by mtgx 10y ago

Interesting. I would've thought they wouldn't support it anymore, considering there's an even smaller chance that Apple and Microsoft would support it, too. I was thinking that maybe they're waiting on the NETVC/Daala/Thor/VP10 video codec standardization by the IETF, which would then be followed by a new standard for images on the web based on the same technology. But I guess they're going with webp for now. I wonder why they finally decided to support webp.

d0ugie 10y ago
Looking at the final string of comments on the previous thread, I suspect they are doing it because WebP has finally reached enough critical mass, in particular with some CDNs and mod_pagespeed (plus some user agent or accept header confusion if I recall), for continuing not to implement WebP simply making too little sense. Better late than never...
niftich 10y ago
I mean this in the best possible way, but Mozilla -- more often that not -- tends to go along with Google's direction with regard to web platform APIs, supported file formats, etc. In my recollection, their most high-profile disagreement was over WebSQL vs IndexedDB, where IndexedDB was championed by Mozilla with fervor I have rarely seen -- or rather, Mozilla straight-up declared they would never support WebSQL -- and in the end IndexedDB actually won out. There seems to be a general mutual reciprocity [1] between the Chrome and Firefox teams, although in a mercantilist sense of Chrome introducing all sorts of stuff all the time, and Firefox implements them also within a few versions. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=substring&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=parity-Chrome https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_t...
- Sylos 10y ago
  Can't really expect much else with the market share that Google has. They can implement anything they want, and it's halfway there to being a web standard. If Mozilla doesn't follow suit, they risk losing even more users, because webpage developers might just ignore Firefox or give it a worse fallback solution.

by mtgx 10y ago

d0ugie 10y ago

Looking at the final string of comments on the previous thread, I suspect they are doing it because WebP has finally reached enough critical mass, in particular with some CDNs and mod_pagespeed (plus some user agent or accept header confusion if I recall), for continuing not to implement WebP simply making too little sense. Better late than never...

niftich 10y ago

I mean this in the best possible way, but Mozilla -- more often that not -- tends to go along with Google's direction with regard to web platform APIs, supported file formats, etc. In my recollection, their most high-profile disagreement was over WebSQL vs IndexedDB, where IndexedDB was championed by Mozilla with fervor I have rarely seen -- or rather, Mozilla straight-up declared they would never support WebSQL -- and in the end IndexedDB actually won out. There seems to be a general mutual reciprocity [1] between the Chrome and Firefox teams, although in a mercantilist sense of Chrome introducing all sorts of stuff all the time, and Firefox implements them also within a few versions. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=substring&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=parity-Chrome https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_t...

Sylos 10y ago
Can't really expect much else with the market share that Google has. They can implement anything they want, and it's halfway there to being a web standard. If Mozilla doesn't follow suit, they risk losing even more users, because webpage developers might just ignore Firefox or give it a worse fallback solution.