this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
93 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37731 readers
293 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
TBF, that's actually good. .jpg and .png are ancient and .webp is way way better. The fault is not .webp, it's browsers and clients which stubbornly refuse to support it.
i personally have had no compatibility issues with webp - i would just rather my image formats are not owned by google, really. i would much rather use jpegxl, but chrome doesn't support it because it competes with webp and we couldn't have that, could we.
but also it's that webp only works if you convert to webp manually, i find. their automatic conversion just ruins the colours (particularly on pixel art). plus, i do actually prefer png. i can edit what i want in a hex editor, whereas i can't seem to do that with webp.
i have a browser extension that refuses webp, so i get served png where possible; but i can't make sure that images i upload are served as png for others
I mean, why do you even use chrome if google is your problem? :D
i don't.[^1] but like it or not, chrome dictates what the internet does now. there's no point in sites hosting jpegxl images if ~3% of their users will see it, and there's no point in firefox developing a decoder if no sites host jpegxl. so even though it's objectively better, and is highly supported by non-browser programmes; it has no recourse for gaining traction on the web
[^1]:
in fact, i loudly decry it to anyone who will listen. but the number of non-chromium browsers i can count on my fingers.
I had no idea that Chrome dropped support. Classic corpo shit https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reasons
yeah exactly. that's why i don't like webp. i've nothing against it as a format, i would just rather use image format that's not backed by said corpo
just out of interest db0, did this thread in any way change your opinion on webp?[^1] i'm just constructing a pet theory on internet discussions
(sorry to necro an old thread, and i'm sure you have other things on your plate right now; i'm just interested)
(also completely off-topic; i'm surprised your blog still has the wordpress favicon. i would have thought you of all people would have changed that)
[^1]: or tumblr, for that matter
Yes ofc. I'll switch to the new jpeg as default as soon as feasible
well that's better than i expected[^1]. thank you for answering!
[^1]: (although worse than i'd hoped; i've stopped using webp altogether, even though it's objectively better. i think jpeg-xl will be available on chrome soon after hd-dvds are playable on playstations)