jrmuizel

The rasterization of the Unicode character will be cached in the glyph cache just like the rest of the glyphs, so the GIF is not really any cheaper.

(x+1)>>1 isn't equivalent to x/2. It gives the wrong result for positive numbers like (x=1).

Compilers actually generate (x+(x>>31))>>1 for signed division by 2. Which on x86 is three more instructions and requires an additional register.

Using x>>1 makes sense if you want floored division instead of truncating towards zero. Floored division is better if you want to reduce precision of the input or something like that and don't want to bias towards zero.

This performance claim doesn't seem to match the measurements others have done.

For example, using the code from http://iq12.com/blog/as3-benchmark/ which I've put up here: http://people.mozilla.com/~jmuizelaar/v8-flash.html, I get a score of 2134 with Flash vs 11796 in Chrome. At least on this benchmark, it looks like V8 is a worthy competitor.

This works for me. What's read-only about the repositories that you get?

My position isn't that there's "nothing wrong or unfixable about Jpeg" at all. There's lots wrong and fixable with JPEG. My problem with WebP is that it currently doesn't fix enough of the problems that JPEG has and that if we adopt it right now we might end up with another format that still has problems and will have to replace WebP with yet another format that fixes those problems later. JPEG took 6 years to standardize and has lasted for nearly 20, this suggests that we might not want to rush to commit to a 8 month old image format with a bitstream that was frozen the moment it became public.

As for support in other browsers, WebM is supported by Opera, Chrome and Firefox, plus it solves problem of being a royalty-free modern video codec and neither Safari nor IE have obliged in short order. What do you think that WebP brings that will make adoption happen faster than WebM?

I'd like to respond to your criticism of my argument but I'm having trouble understanding it.

As for my point about Facebook, I believe that they do care about the size of the images. However, the fact that they can be trivially and losslessly reduced in size suggests they just don't care enough to invest in optimizing them. Presumably, they have more important things to be working on. This suggests that they might also have more important things to work on than switching to webp.

I can't reproduce this in Firefox 6