3 ms·
I think at this point a better solution is to use a polyfill for Webp. The polyfill is pretty light because the underlying image format is just a single frame
by 79d697i6fdif 10y ago
I think at this point a better solution is to use a polyfill for Webp.
The polyfill is pretty light because the underlying image format is just a single frame of VP8. Shouldn't get much performance hit since it will just render as a single frame of video on polyfilled browsers
- Eric_WVGG 10y agoI was going to say the same thing, except "polyfill for JPEG-2000"
- 79d697i6fdif 10y agonah JPEG 2000 isn't quite as nice because some browsers can't natively parse it :) . WebP support literally already exists in all mainstream browsers, it's just a single frame of VP8. And it's still around half the size of regular JPEG Not sure why we're downvoted here, either of these are clearly better options for increasing image download speed