A file format can not, by itself, be “incompatible” with a website. What matters is the browser, and Firefox at least is adding support (slowly), and they are the ones who matter ATM.
Open is not the same as patent-free, the two things can coexist (and they do in the case of webp).
It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.
It does, yes, but from what I gather it’s rather difficult to actually encode such an animated image compared to, say, a GIF. Display should work just fine.
JPEG-XL exists, is factually better, and is not patent encumbered.
Yes, but that is actually almost incompatible with every app and website
A file format can not, by itself, be “incompatible” with a website. What matters is the browser, and Firefox at least is adding support (slowly), and they are the ones who matter ATM.
How is WebP “patent encumbered”? It’s an open format.
Open is not the same as patent-free, the two things can coexist (and they do in the case of webp).
It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.
That’s just not true.
https://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
Thanks for taking the time to disprove this
That’s still not patent free. Heck it’s right there: “irrevocable (unless we say so)”.
does jpeg xl support animated images?
It does, yes, but from what I gather it’s rather difficult to actually encode such an animated image compared to, say, a GIF. Display should work just fine.