On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Mike Lawther <mikelawt...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:56 AM Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Mike Lawther >> > <mikelawt...@chromium.org> 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, and developers would start relying on that, users >> > that haven't updated yet or are on Firefox ESR would suddenly get a >> > worse experience in Firefox. That is not a great incentive. >> >> It doesn't seem likely to me that developers would knowingly drop >> support for some set of users that they already support. >> >> It seems much more likely that some set of developers currently don't >> bother supporting APNG in firefox, either because they worry that it's >> a browser-specific dead-end technology, or because they feel that >> there's not enough firefox users that it's worth their time, or >> because it's too much of a pain to support due to lack of Accept >> header. >> >> The question to me is how large this latter group is, and if it's >> large enough that it warrants adding the header. >> > I don't really have a good answer for that. I can't think of how we (that > is, browser devs) could gather data on this, other than going out and > asking. > > Do you reckon that a world where multiple browsers correctly send Accept > will be a good enough story that devs will feel it's not dead end / worth > their time? And so helps solve the problem for all three of those groups, > making figuring out the size of the latter less of a showstopper?
I think it'd be a while before website developers think it's worth changing from UA-sniffing to using the Accept header. Mainly because of inertia (the UA-sniffing code is already there and likely documented in places like stackexchange), but also because switching to Accept header only would actually drop users to very little benefit. > Aside - I mentioned the MIME type earlier as a separate question. If devs > are worried that it's a browser specific dead end tech, having > 'image/vnd.mozilla.apng' probably won't help that perception :( I've read > the bug and also chatted offline with Stuart and Vlad about this, so I > understand why 'image/apng' is almost certainly not going to happen. I don't think the "vnd.mozilla" part makes any difference. Developers use what works, not what is nicely named. The whole CSS prefixes debacle has pretty clearly showed that. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
