Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

I think now, in 2010s most of internet content is made by regular users, not webdevs. Can we look at the problem from their perspective? Of course, CDNs and webdevs care about MIME types and Accept headers, but regular users know nothing about that and they've been happily posting apngs to

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:56 AM Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther > wrote: > >> I'm testing the water here :) Is this at all likely

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Mike Lawther wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:56 AM Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther >> >

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On 22/02/16 14:58, Xidorn Quan wrote: > But older Firefoxes go away fairly quickly, so I wouldn't consider > this as a valid reason blocking us moving forward. I'm not sure that's as true as we'd like it to be :-| Gerv ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

In my last commercial project 2 month ago I used APNG in the iconography of my Firefox Add-on. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 20:56 Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther > wrote: >> I'm testing the water here :) Is this at all likely to fly? > > I think the problem with APNG, as opposed to other image formats, >

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

What if, in the future: 1. Safari fully supports 2. This bug lands https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1160200 Then it would be possible for web-developers to just use this, right? ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther > wrote: >> I'm testing the water here :) Is this at all likely to fly? > > I think the problem with APNG, as opposed to other image formats, >

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther wrote: > I'm testing the water here :) Is this at all likely to fly? I think the problem with APNG, as opposed to other image formats, e.g., WebP, is that we already support it. If we added APNG to our Accept header now,

Fwd: APNG and Accept-Encoding

[I joined the list and posted this again, I think the previous one got trapped in moderation] -- Forwarded message -- From: Mike Lawther <mikelawt...@chromium.org> Date: 19 February 2016 at 17:52 Subject: Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding To: Jeff Muizelaar <jmuizel...@mozill

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 21/02/16 14:30, maxste...@gmail.com wrote: >> Here's interesting live example, this website provides lots of >> animated cursors to download, and they show them online as APNGs in >> Firefox and Safari, and as GIFs in

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On 21/02/16 14:30, maxste...@gmail.com wrote: > Here's interesting live example, this website provides lots of > animated cursors to download, and they show them online as APNGs in > Firefox and Safari, and as GIFs in other browsers. Cursor's ANI > format is 32bit and animated, but it's not

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

Here's interesting live example, this website provides lots of animated cursors to download, and they show them online as APNGs in Firefox and Safari, and as GIFs in other browsers. Cursor's ANI format is 32bit and animated, but it's not supported by browsers, so they have to convert. One such

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On 18 February 2016 at 15:38, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:08:12AM +1100, Mike Lawther wrote: > > Hi Mozilla developers! > > > > tl,dr; can Firefox send an Accept-Encoding heading for APNG? > > > > I'm an engi

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On 18/02/16 07:45, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > Is there a response to the criticism of Accept outlined here: > https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Why_not_conneg#Negotiating_by_format As Guardian of the Accept Header, that would be my question too. Using Accept to detect APNG support will never be reliable

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

Is there a response to the criticism of Accept outlined here: https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Why_not_conneg#Negotiating_by_format -Jeff On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Mike Lawther <mikelawt...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Mozilla developers! > > tl,dr; can Firefox send an Accept-E

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Mike Lawther wrote: > Is this something we can coordinate on? Do you mean the Accept header? Not sure how Accept-Encoding makes sense here. As for the MIME type to mention there, as I said in the bug I think we should just ship

APNG and Accept-Encoding

Hi Mozilla developers! tl,dr; can Firefox send an Accept-Encoding heading for APNG? I'm an engineer at Google working on Chrome. We're considering support for APNG. To support APNG, we think it's important for web developers (including for example CDN operators) to be able to decide server-side

Re: APNG and Accept-Encoding

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:08:12AM +1100, Mike Lawther wrote: > Hi Mozilla developers! > > tl,dr; can Firefox send an Accept-Encoding heading for APNG? > > I'm an engineer at Google working on Chrome. We're considering support for > APNG. > > To support APNG, we thin