2 ms·

Videos and images are treated very differently by browsers and OS:es. I'm guessing the better suggestion would be to use apng or animated avif if you are lookin

Videos and images are treated very differently by browsers and OS:es. I'm guessing the better suggestion would be to use apng or animated avif if you are looking for a proper gif alternative.

account42 9mo ago
Do browsers support progressive enhancement from gif to animated avif without javascript? The royally messed that up for animated webp.
- SahAssar 9mo ago
  Yes, by using the <picture> element with <source> elements declaring the individual formats with the last one being a regular <img> with the gif. Or you could use content-negotiation to only send avif when it's supported, but IMO the HTML way with <picture> is perhaps clearer for the client and end user. I think the webp problem was due to browsers supporting webp but not supporting animation, transparency or other features, so content negotiation based on mime types (either via <picture> or HTTP content-negotiation) did not work properly. Safari 16.1-16.3 has the same problem with AVIF, but that is a smaller problem than it was with webp.
  - account42 9mo ago
    So I guess that's a no - avif support does not necessarily mean animated avif support.
    - SahAssar 9mo ago
      I covered this in my comment: > Safari 16.1-16.3 has the same problem with AVIF, but that is a smaller problem than it was with webp.