10 ms·
wasn't webp supposed to have GIF like animations? As far as i know I have never seen one in the wild, just webm. I think the problem is that GIFs are images an
by afiori 8y ago
wasn't webp supposed to have GIF like animations? As far as i know I have never seen one in the wild, just webm.
I think the problem is that GIFs are images and so displayed as such with little concept of play-control. A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example. I believe a GIF-killer will need to be considered an image as a format.
- iainmerrick 8y agoYes, agreed. That lack of play-control is both a weakness and a strength of GIF. The strength is misunderstood and underrated by those who think videos should replace all usage of GIFs.
- Kaiyou 8y agoPlay control isn't impossible for GIF. I'm using sxiv for viewing images, which is as minimal as it gets, but it does have pause, single step forward and single step backward for GIF.
- iainmerrick 8y agoWho said it was impossible?
- chriswarbo 8y ago> GIFs are images and so displayed as such with little concept of play-control > A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example. > I believe a GIF-killer will need to be considered an image as a format. If we consider animated GIF to be an image, then the distinction between "image" and "video" is pretty arbitrary. I would say the distinction isn't inherent to the format either. It's inherent to the HTML tag. There's no reason we couldn't support `<img src="foo.av1" />` or `<video src="bar.gif" />` with the appropriate UI for each. I actually think this is a symptom of something bigger: browsers (and most other applications) shouldn't care about media formats at all; that's a low-level concern of the OS/stdlib. The Datatypes system of AmigaOS (and later BeOS) is an example of how this could be improved.