4 ms·
The point of using a format over another, given the availability, is to gain performance. You're suggesting to load a whole new parser, parse images at a highe
by mumblerino 6y ago
The point of using a format over another, given the availability, is to gain performance.
You're suggesting to load a whole new parser, parse images at a higher level than browsers can (i.e. slower and with less concurrency), and make `<img>` a whole lot harder to manage.
That's not worth it at all unless the savings are substantial (say BMP vs JPEG)
- tjoff 6y agoThe web we got today are an astounding feat of not caring about performance in the most aggressive way imaginable. Performance is not a factor in this.
- raindeer3 6y ago> The web we got today are an astounding feat of not caring about performance in the most aggressive way imaginable. > Performance is not a factor in this. If you care about SEO, it does. Check Google's pagespeed test.
- tjoff 6y agoIf that is true then the web does not care about SEO. And quite obviously it isn't weighted particularly hard at all (probably because there wouldn't be anything left). edit: Case in point, except for google.com (which itself has a terrible score of 62) I can't even find out a single google service that isn't in the reds on the pagespeed index. Even when it decided to load the mobile version.
- mumblerino 6y ago> Performance is not a factor in this. What a completely ridiculous statement. Why else would anyone choose BGP if not for performance (i.e. download speed)? The choice to use BGP over a plain old JPG would be made specifically by people who do care.
- tjoff 6y agoThe context here is rendering performance.