3 ms·
Yes, I also think they should have waited indefinitely. I don't trust Google to care about backwards compatibility and keep on supporting Webp v1 forever, I wou
by mpol 6y ago
Yes, I also think they should have waited indefinitely. I don't trust Google to care about backwards compatibility and keep on supporting Webp v1 forever, I would expect them to drop it before even dropping jpeg or png. Especially in this case, where it mostly serves Google and other big web corporations, and not regular users.
Mozilla always had the stance that they wouldn't just add support for technology that might be just a passer-by technology. I think that was the right choice and I think it is a shame they added support for webp recently.
I can even imagine this to be market practice, where they add new stuff, where Apple and Mozilla and newcomers have to chase Google's fad of the day, while Google has enormous resources for Chrome. You can call me paranoid, I probably am :)
Anyway, if Google Chrome ditches Webp v1 in the next 10 years, I will not be that guy to say "Told you so!", but I will think it for sure.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y agoNah, why would Google do that? Oh wait... that’s exactly what they’re doing with HTTP/2 Push.
- jefftk 6y agoServer push is an optional extra, and the browser can drop support without hurting compatibility at all. The browser cannot drop support for an image format without major compatibility issues. If you would like to bet on whether webp is still supported in Chrome in a decade I'd be happy to ;) (Disclosure: I work for Google, and have no internal information on this)