Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,407

    Default Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

    Phoronix: Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

    The Google engineers working on the Chrome/Chromium web-browser have released the beta to the upcoming version 32 release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyMjI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    163

    Default Damn

    What pisses me off is that Mozilla is completely ignoring the WebP for some stupid political reasons (see the bug report). It could be the image format of the future for frak sake! :/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    What pisses me off is that Mozilla is completely ignoring the WebP for some stupid political reasons (see the bug report). It could be the image format of the future for frak sake! :/
    There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

    But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Vibration API? Brace yourselves, porn sites with vibrator controls are coming. Really Google?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

    But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P
    Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Chrome 32 Beta Has A Vibration API, Animated WebP

    The Google engineers working on the Chrome/Chromium web-browser have released the beta to the upcoming version 32 release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUyMjI
    Very happy that goog adopted this webapi. Hopefully the rest will eventually make their way in but webkit is pretty far behind at the moment.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want. Mozilla should support it and let the web decided whether to use it or not. It's not like its supporting a closed image type, that Mozilla should suppress.
    No. Mozilla shouldn't add any new image format within the browser introducing additional fragmentation and potential security risks without first demonstrating that WebP provides enough of an advantage to counterbalance the negative factors. Just because Google has decided to release a new format doesn't mean Mozilla should immediately sign up especially as the format is rapidly evolving. Let them take their time. It is not like IE is going to add support for it anytime soon either.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Vibration API? Brace yourselves, porn sites with vibrator controls are coming. Really Google?
    Don't be silly. You will have full control over which websites you allow and this is primary for mobile web applications.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Website developers should be free to support/use any FOSS/open image format that they want.
    Right. And sooner or later, all browsers must support 935739 different formats, just because some web developer decided to use them. Like WMF. It has published documentation, it has its use cases, is better than SVG in some circumstances. Someone surely wants to use it. Why not?


    We don't need hundreds of conflicting standards. We need a few good standards that cover all cases. There's no corner that WebP would fill. It's patent encumbered and despite google's claims there remains a risk for users. It doesn't compress better than jpeg, unless you compare using the broken psychovisual model WebP is optimizing for. It isn't even a real standard. WebM was documented as "what this bunch of source code we tagged v1.0 produces" and will remain bug-for-bug-compatible with it. WebP followed from that.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    163

    Default Well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    There's political reasons? When I got interested in WebP, I looked up a bunch of articles about what it provides. What I saw (from tests and live examples) was that WebP provided nothing over the current JPG compression method. In fact, in the examples it showed that WebP actually had more artifacting when increasing compression.

    But that was earlier this year, maybe it's gotten better? :P
    Hmm, I've seen quite different results (and even did my own test with sw compiled from source...), mind if you could link the articles? Also the bug report looks like that:

    Mozilla: "Blah blah it doesn't support XY"
    People: "It does that since the last release, duh."
    Mozilla: "Mmmkey, but what about XZ?"
    People: "That will be merged tomorrow!"
    Mozilla: "Fine, could you give us some patches?"
    People: "Here you go, link-to-git."
    Mozilla: "Oh, well the library still sucks, we won't support it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •