webP and webM support in LiveCode

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

webP and webM support in LiveCode

Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode
Hi All,

Now that there is an ongoing thread about storing
bitmap images inside a SQLite BLOB, I just want to
remember that there is an enhancement request
in LiveCode Quality Center for supporting
webP and webM in LiveCode engine.

If webP and webM support in Livecode Engine
could help in your current or future work in this
development platform, please vote for this
enhancement request at the Quality Center:

http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12448

on 2014-05-19, Alejandro wrote:

Although I have posted this request in LiveCode's mail-list,
the Quality Center is the place to discuss it.

Could you include in LiveCode, support for these
modern and updated video, audio and animation
formats: webM and webP?

http://www.webmproject.org/about/
https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/?csw=1

Notice that already, LiveCode displays webM within
revBrowserCef (Chrome Embedded Framework dll).

This request ask for displaying and controling
webM and webP by LiveCode script within a
card or as part of a group, not just within
revBrowserCef via javaScript.

Al
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: webP and webM support in LiveCode

Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode
Hi Alejandro

webM would require a reasonable size refactor to players because we would need to wrap a custom player around the library and then decide which player to use depending on the movie file.

webP on the other hand looks like it could be added without any refactoring, however, as you can imagine there is a _lot_ of work in adding an image format. It could be that such work is justified by the HTML5 project to help with file size. Failing that and given there’s a workaround of not using the format I imagine it would take a business services contract or an open source contribution to get it done. Then there’s considerations like whether adding the library to the engine is comparable in size to any savings one might make using the format. Not an issue for a browser that displays many websites but for us it would make the project a net loss.

Cheers

Monte


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode