[asadotzler]

If that's the case, let it be a feature of image editing packages that can output formats that are for the web. It's a web standard we're talking about here, not a general-purpose image format, so asking browsers to carry that big code load seems unreasonable when existing formats do most of what we need and want for the web.

[crote]

People generally expect browsers to display general-purpose image formats. It's why they support formats like classical JPEG, instead of just GIF and PNG.

Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

[robertoandred]

> Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

That’s a function of the website, not the browser.

[jyoung8607]

> That’s a function of the website, not the browser.

That's hand-waving away quite a lot. The task changes from serving a copy of a file on disk, as every other image format in common use, to needing a transcoding pipeline more akin to sites like YouTube. Technically possible, but lots of extra complexity in return for what gain?