[IvanK_net]

What we really need is to spread WebCL - https://www.khronos.org/registry/webcl/specs/1.0.0/

1. It is already standardized language and API. There exist a lot of code for WebCL.

2. WebCL engines can run on CPU, they can use all CPU cores, SIMD etc., while still being a part of web browser (no special drivers required). It will give us much better performance, than asm.js, SIMD.js, Google's Native Client or any other "unstandardizible" things.

[ndesaulniers]

WebCL is DOA: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=664147#c30

[azakai]

I wouldn't say DOA (which is final). As the comment there says, it doesn't make sense currently. But that could change.

[IvanK_net]

Well that's what Microsoft said about Android in 2008. No wonder that Firefox is loosing popularity, when they refuse to innovate.

[ndesaulniers]

I'm taking my crayons and going home!

[anon1385]

Non-Mozilla technologies are not welcome in Firefox and never have been.

That is why we have been stuck for 15 years without a lossy image format that supports transparency (meanwhile they put lots of effort into supporting an animated png format that was invented by Mozilla that nobody else in the world cares about or uses). Mozilla's NIH syndrome holds back the web.

[tedmielczarek]

This is demonstrably untrue, as we've implemented a number of specs that originated elsewhere. (WebAudio, WebRTC). Just because something has a spec doesn't mean it is sensible to implement, however. As Vlad points out, there's no mobile implementation of that technology, so it doesn't make sense for us to push it, especially when there's an alternative spec that does have traction.

As for image formats, there was a table going around Twitter that I can't find now showing implementation of new image formats by browser. Basically Google implemented WebP, Microsoft implemented JPEG XR, and Apple implemented JPEG2000 (IIRC). There is no consensus in that space.

[anon1385]

>As for image formats, there was a table going around Twitter that I can't find now showing implementation of new image formats by browser. Basically Google implemented WebP, Microsoft implemented JPEG XR, and Apple implemented JPEG2000 (IIRC). There is no consensus in that space.

There is no consensus because Mozilla have spent the last 15 years rejecting every proposed format. Mozilla (repeatedly) rejected JPEG2000 long before Chrome even existed, so you can hardly cite Chrome's lack of support as an excuse for your inaction.