On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > Deprecating HTTP is totally justified. Enabling some features on HTTP but
> > not others is not, unless there's a real technical reason why these new
>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > You're inflicting developer pain without any real justification. A sort
> of
> > collective punishment, if you will.
>
> Why is that you think
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > Limiting new features does absolutely nothing in that aspect.
>
> Hyperbole much? CTO of the New York Times cited HTTP/2 and Service
> Workers as a reason to sta
IMO, limiting new features to HTTPS only, when there's no real security
reason behind it will only end up limiting feature adoption.
It directly "punishing" developers and adds friction to using new features,
but only influence business in a very indirect manner.
If we want to move more people to
I have a couple of points which IMO are missing from the discussion.
# JPEG's missing features & alpha channel capabilities in particular
Arguably, one of the biggest gains from WebP/JPEG-XR support is the ability to
send real life photos with an alpha channel.
Last time I checked, about 60% of
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:12:14 AM UTC+2, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 2013-10-18 1:57 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
>
>
> > Would you consider a large sample of lossless Web images (real-life images
> > served as PNG24, even though it'd be wiser to serve them as JPEG
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:48:16 PM UTC+2, Josh Aas wrote:
> This is the discussion thread for the Mozilla Research blog post entitled
> "Studying Lossy Image Compression Efficiency", and the related study.
Thank you for publishing this research!
While I like the methodology used a lot, I f
7 matches
Mail list logo
