As I understand it, Mozilla is implementing WebP support
Neither APNG nor WebP are supported by IE/Edge.
There is a mix between Safari and Opera. Opera supports WebP. Safari
supports APNG. Earlier in this email thread there was mention that Opera 12
supported APNG but I believe it was actually removed after Opera 12
If the Chromium developers added APNG support, web developers would still
have to check for support and fallback to something else. So to the web
developer, APNG isn't buying them much.
Also as I understand it, WebP gives better compression most of the time for
roughly-equivalent image quality. I believe letting Mozilla complete WebP
support is the better option. Once Mozilla finishes, I don't see much
benefit at all to adding APNG support.
If Chromium developers were to start adding APNG support and finish before
Mozilla added WebP support then there is a short-term gain at the cost of
more formats to support/maintain. I'm not sure that short-term gain is
The type of inter-frame compression supported by APNG is fairly basic. It
doesn't offer much room for compression. Essentially, it is just decoding a
smaller image if it can. However, many animated gifs I see today (anecdata,
I know) involve full-frame updates.
I am listening and receptive to adding APNG support. These are my current
thoughts. I am happy to hear if there may be points I have missed that
Chris Blume | Software Engineer | ***@google.com | +1-614-929-9221
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:16 PM, 'Peter Kasting' via blink-dev <
Post by 'Peter Kasting' via blink-dev Post by Max Stepin
If a change has low compatibility risk but isn't expected to
Post by Max Stepin
significantly move the web forward, Blink usually still welcomes it.
Occasionally, Blink will reject changes in this bucket to avoid technical
But that means "Blink usually still welcomes it" unless it's too complex.
I still think that having Chrome/Opera/Firefox/Safari agree on one format
(leaving only IE/Edge out) would be a significant step forward for the
I don't make the final call here, but I'll reiterate the concerns I think
* With animated WebP, it seems like Chromium supports a format that's
basically a superset of the capabilities of APNG already, for authors
willing to encode for formats not supported by all browsers
* For other authors, APNG doesn't help unless IE/Edge are going to support
* There seems to be comparatively little web author interest in APNG (even
taking into account its limited cross-browser support in the past), so
relatively little upside to this
* The additional implementation in the PNG image decoder source is
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.