[eviks]

Interesting, it seems like this isn't part of the spec per wiki:

> Most browsers now recognize and support NAB, though it is not strictly part of the GIF89a specification.

So I guess the players for the new video codecs could do something similar and agree on some metadata to be used for the same purpose?

[codetrotter]

> Most browsers now recognize and support NAB

The “NAB” was introduced in Netscape Navigator 2.0, 50 million years ago.

The phrasing with “most browsers” and “now” is a bit weird, on part of whoever wrote that part of the Wikipedia article.

Every major browser that I know of has supported animated gifs since forever.

Any browser that doesn’t is probably either a non-graphical browser in the first place, or one that has like five people using it.

[eviks]

You're doing a similar phrasing weirdnesd as the wiki

> Every major browser

There are only 2 major ones

And this brings us back to the main point - this is no "format" issue, Chrome could just as well support some metadata field as "loop for n" for the newer video files, and the situation would be the same as with NAB when Safari adds it.

[teruakohatu]

There are two major browser engine lineages but at least four of 'major' browsers (>5% market share) and a number of minor browsers.

[troupo]

There are three major browser engines. Chrome derivatives cannot be counted as a separate browser (yet, or ever? remains to be seen)

[eviks]

5% is minor, not major.

[mort96]

Come on, this is ridiculously pedantic. They used "major browser" to exclude WiP and hobby project to avoid pedants coming in and saying "uh Ladybird doesn't support looping gifs yet" or whatever. But I guess there's no pleasing the pedants.

[eviks]

You've missed both points:

- the 5% point you're responding to doesn't refer to the original "Every major browser"

- the original reponse just highlights that there is no non-pedantic difference between "most browsers" and "Every major browser", so that was the start of the anti-pedantism battle