3 ms·
It's sad that Mozilla has not included WEBP. I cannot understand why since it seems to be a wonderful format. Maybe they are waiting for all the promised featu
by SeppoErviala 14y ago
It's sad that Mozilla has not included WEBP. I cannot understand why since it seems to be a wonderful format.
Maybe they are waiting for all the promised features to deliver. So far I haven't seen working animations or lossy + alpha in Chrome so they probably aren't ready yet.
- unwind 14y agoI looked for a bug, and found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919. The reason given (that I could find, it's a pretty verbose bug entry) is that WEBP doesn't support alpha. Sounds like a pretty weird reason to me, but I'm not a Mozilla developer.
- ZeroGravitas 14y agoWebP does support Alpha, now. I think the true reason is that evaluating the quality of, and introducing widespread support for, a lossy image format are both really hard problems and Mozilla didn't want to go off half-cocked. Google on the other hand control both ends of the wire and so can see the benefits immediately and as a result are more keen to experiment. I'm intrigued to see if they do the same with with WebM v2 including VP9 and Opus and just roll it out (in beta even, which makes much more sense for 'disposable' video conferencing use-cases than it does for long-term video storage or Youtube) rather than continue the usual 10-year upgrade treadmill for video codecs.