Ask HN: WebM or WebP for GIF Replacements?
There are benefits to either approach, but using an animated webp image has the benefit of using the same workflow, semantics and markup as a gif (aside from accessibility concerns).
A webm video requires more changes to templates and partials and redoing a lot of work, but is [apparently much faster](https://corydowdy.com/blog/apng-vs-webp-vs-gif).
I've read that the underlying tech for these is the same thing, so if I wanted to do a replacement gifs, which one should I choose? If you are going to do the work I would switch to a proper video format. If you are planning a bit into the future this is probably AV1 with h264 fallback. However it is pretty easy to add or remove formats from the list. I get that you need to change <img> to <video> but that seems like a reasonable thing to do when you are serving video. In exchange you get better mutli-format negotiation, access to controls and seeking if desired, smarter incremental loading...