From 1e00ee0bec57ba1b8435e648c8cb1640984d706a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rohan Kumar Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:08:43 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Correction: s/image-compression/max-bpp/ --- content/notes/document-policy-and-image-compression.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/notes/document-policy-and-image-compression.md b/content/notes/document-policy-and-image-compression.md index b8dff8a..291bd37 100644 --- a/content/notes/document-policy-and-image-compression.md +++ b/content/notes/document-policy-and-image-compression.md @@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ replyURI: "https://github.com/wicg/document-policy/blob/main/document-policy-exp replyTitle: "Document Policy Explainer" replyType: "TechArticle" --- -Interaction between the Document-Policy `image-compression` directive and a user-agent's supported image formats is currently unspecified. +Interaction between the Document-Policy `*-images-max-bpp` directive and a user-agent's supported image formats is currently unspecified. Next-gen image formats of the present and future include WebP, AVIF, JPEG-XL, and WebP2. With every new format, new compression ratios become possible; however, cross-browser support is inconsistent. That means possible compression ratios also vary by browser. Fewer supported image formats should allow a less aggressive compression ratio in the Document Policy. Unfortunately, browsers' `Accept` request headers don't always report supported image formats, so servers can't easily compute the best policy for a given browser. Specifying a per-mimetype compression ratio isn't ideal. Sometimes a PNG can beat AVIF or come close enough to not justify the extra bytes of a `` element. On a browser with AVIF and PNG support, loaded PNGs should be held to AVIF-level compression expectations. -I think the most robust solution would be to offer multiple image-compression policies to a browser; the browser can then pick the policy that matches its supported image formats. For instance: a server could offer a `image-compression-supports-webp`, `image-compression-supports-webp-avif`, `image-compression-supports-webp-avif-jxl`, etc. Unfortunately, this is really wordy and will only grow more complex as browsers adopt new image formats. +I think the most robust solution would be to offer multiple image-compression policies to a browser; the browser can then pick the policy that matches its supported image formats. For instance: a server could offer a `max-bpp-supports-webp`, `max-bpp-supports-webp-avif`, `max-bpp-supports-webp-avif-jxl`, etc. Unfortunately, this is really wordy and will only grow more complex as browsers adopt new image formats. -TLDR: in a web where supported image formats can vary, it's unclear how `image-compression` and a UA's supported image formats should interact. This variance warrants a policy more complex than a single global value. +TLDR: in a web where supported image formats can vary, it's unclear how `*-images-max-bpp` and a UA's supported image formats should interact. This variance warrants a policy more complex than a single global value.