Mozilla apparently implementing WebP support for Firefox (opens in new tab)

(bugzilla.mozilla.org)

12 pointsd0ugie9y ago9 comments

9 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

mtgx9y ago· 3 in thread

Interesting. I would've thought they wouldn't support it anymore, considering there's an even smaller chance that Apple and Microsoft would support it, too. I was thinking that maybe they're waiting on the NETVC/Daala/Thor/VP10 video codec standardization by the IETF, which would then be followed by a new standard for images on the web based on the same technology. But I guess they're going with webp for now. I wonder why they finally decided to support webp.

d0ugieOP9y ago

Looking at the final string of comments on the previous thread, I suspect they are doing it because WebP has finally reached enough critical mass, in particular with some CDNs and mod_pagespeed (plus some user agent or accept header confusion if I recall), for continuing not to implement WebP simply making too little sense. Better late than never...

niftich9y ago

I mean this in the best possible way, but Mozilla -- more often that not -- tends to go along with Google's direction with regard to web platform APIs, supported file formats, etc.

In my recollection, their most high-profile disagreement was over WebSQL vs IndexedDB, where IndexedDB was championed by Mozilla with fervor I have rarely seen -- or rather, Mozilla straight-up declared they would never support WebSQL -- and in the end IndexedDB actually won out.

There seems to be a general mutual reciprocity [1] between the Chrome and Firefox teams, although in a mercantilist sense of Chrome introducing all sorts of stuff all the time, and Firefox implements them also within a few versions.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_t...

Sylos9y ago

Can't really expect much else with the market share that Google has. They can implement anything they want, and it's halfway there to being a web standard. If Mozilla doesn't follow suit, they risk losing even more users, because webpage developers might just ignore Firefox or give it a worse fallback solution.

shakethemonkey9y ago· 2 in thread

Importantly, the webp format supports animation, and is considerably more efficient than animated gif. [1]

[1] http://res.cloudinary.com/demo/image/upload/fl_awebp/cell_an...

bzbarsky9y ago

Yes, but is it as efficient as WebM?

The concept of creating animated images out of the index frame format of a video codec is pretty amusing to me. Just use the video codec if you want video.

shakethemonkey9y ago

This becomes a complicated discussion. In an img tag, a webp can degrade to gif, but that is not true of webm, which is not an image. And webp uses considerably less resources than webm.

It's probably also an easier sell to the more problematic browsers (you know who they are) to support webp than webm.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse