3 ms·

I'm guessing purely political. See "Consensus & Standardization" for WebP: http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6471725441089536 http://www.chromestatus.com/fea

by rayshan 13y ago

I'm guessing purely political. See "Consensus & Standardization" for WebP: http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6471725441089536 http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6471725441089536 Similar story for Dart: http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528 http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6682831673622528

d0ugie 13y ago
Is there anything you can think of that Mozilla has to gain by not adopting WebP? I'm at a loss.
- rayshan 13y ago
  My comment isn't directed at Mozilla, but other vendors as well. IMO you loose influence by adopting lots of other vendors' tech, whether it's WebP, Dart or asm.js, even if it is open. I'm curious what the tech community thinks of innovation at Opera now that they adopted webkit/blink. Perception is important.
  - azakai 13y ago
    > IMO you loose influence by adopting lots of other vendors' tech That shouldn't be how it works, and I don't think that's how it works. Good tech is adopted by other browsers all the time, just look at WebGL, WebRTC, Web Audio, and this isn't only recent but goes back to XMLHttpRequest and before. There are lots of specific issues and questions regarding every new technology. Those things matter, not a general "we lose if we adopt a tech another vendor proposed" approach, which you assume here.
    - rayshan 13y ago
      I agree. I hope I'm wrong and I certainly hope the best tech win in the long run. Now looking at history of WebRTC, which was also initially drafted by Google, I have hope.
- bsdetector 13y ago
  They won't need webp in their codebase 5 years from now when everybody is using h.265 (much better than webp) except a couple old sites. Browsers can add anything they want at any time, but they can't remove things without breaking part of the internet. If you just throw in anything that is marginally better then you just accumulate cruft. Google's attitude is, if it's 1% better then do it. Do any marginal improvement regardless of how much complication it adds. But sometimes you need the wisdom to say this 1% isn't worth it in the long run.
- acdha 13y ago
  Huge win: lower security exposure. Image codecs are complex and a perennial source of exploitable bugs. There's also the cost of optimizing and testing code. I hope WebP has been improving because in the past it was very slow – as bad as JPEG-2000 – and it takes non-trivial effort to change that. Again, not a burden you'd jump to take on without some very clear wins. The case will become much stronger if the next generation codec delivers more of a win on file size.

by rayshan 13y ago

d0ugie 13y ago

Is there anything you can think of that Mozilla has to gain by not adopting WebP? I'm at a loss.

rayshan 13y ago
My comment isn't directed at Mozilla, but other vendors as well. IMO you loose influence by adopting lots of other vendors' tech, whether it's WebP, Dart or asm.js, even if it is open. I'm curious what the tech community thinks of innovation at Opera now that they adopted webkit/blink. Perception is important.
- azakai 13y ago
  > IMO you loose influence by adopting lots of other vendors' tech That shouldn't be how it works, and I don't think that's how it works. Good tech is adopted by other browsers all the time, just look at WebGL, WebRTC, Web Audio, and this isn't only recent but goes back to XMLHttpRequest and before. There are lots of specific issues and questions regarding every new technology. Those things matter, not a general "we lose if we adopt a tech another vendor proposed" approach, which you assume here.
  - rayshan 13y ago
    I agree. I hope I'm wrong and I certainly hope the best tech win in the long run. Now looking at history of WebRTC, which was also initially drafted by Google, I have hope.
bsdetector 13y ago
They won't need webp in their codebase 5 years from now when everybody is using h.265 (much better than webp) except a couple old sites. Browsers can add anything they want at any time, but they can't remove things without breaking part of the internet. If you just throw in anything that is marginally better then you just accumulate cruft. Google's attitude is, if it's 1% better then do it. Do any marginal improvement regardless of how much complication it adds. But sometimes you need the wisdom to say this 1% isn't worth it in the long run.
acdha 13y ago
Huge win: lower security exposure. Image codecs are complex and a perennial source of exploitable bugs. There's also the cost of optimizing and testing code. I hope WebP has been improving because in the past it was very slow – as bad as JPEG-2000 – and it takes non-trivial effort to change that. Again, not a burden you'd jump to take on without some very clear wins. The case will become much stronger if the next generation codec delivers more of a win on file size.