Webp Support :rejected:

[kyoukaya]

Any plans on allowing uploads of webp images?

Every relevant browser, bar Webkit based browsers, support webp already. Though maybe iOS devices may finally get vp8 decode after half a decade since Webkit seems to be allowing vp8 over webrtc in the future... I'm unsure if a webp polyfill would affect readers on iOS devices.

I've done some small scale, about 20 2300px pages, testing on encoding manga in lossless webp and I've seen 20% reduction in file sizes for RGB images against a zopfli compressed png, which is quite substantial! Testing against 64 color zopfli png only shows webp beating png by 3-5%, though webp is still heaps faster at encoding vs zopfli.

There's probably still more testing that should be done before a conclusion can be drawn on its file saving performance, and lossy mode is a complete unknown for me.

 

[BzzBzz]

IMO. When it get as widely supported as png maybe.

And by "supported" I mean natively supported, without the need to install additional plugins/extensions/whatever.

 

[Oeconomist]

It's quite misleading to write “Every relevant browser, bar Webkit based browsers”, as if only a small share of browsers are based upon Webkit. Webkit-based browsers are about two thirds of the clients in use!

 

[Plykiya]

As long as it would break for a significant amount of our readers, there's no point considering it when png works for all of our readers. The benefit would be minor compared to the headache it would cause.

 

[Samhill]

@Plykiya

Amongst web browsers, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, GNOME Web, Midori, Falkon, Pale Moon, and Waterfox natively support WebP. Microsoft Edge supports WebP through a platform extension (installed by default).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP#Support

Adding up the ones I found here and I got 82.27%. I don't know what percentage of traffic MD gets from Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Edge, but I'm guessing it's higher than 82%. Unless you're using some obscure browser, you can view webp images.

 

[BzzBzz]

Not every one uses very last version of browser. Firefox supports webp from v65 only. ESR version of Firefox is in 60.x still, and most likely won't go to 65+ in next few years.

If it's that awesome why literally no one even google uses it? 9 years passed since format introduction.

I mostly use Firefox but just tried some google sites using chrome. And guess what? These still sends jpegs and pngs! Not a single webp!

Edit: this topic reminds me JP2k vs JPEG arguments back in early 2000... Everyone agree that JP2k is better in many aspects but noone gives a fuck because implementing support doesn't worth it 😎

 

[Lymus]

A couple months ago we had a group that uploaded a couple webp chapters.

We got 100s of reports on them, some people could read them, many couldn't.
Turns out chrome users were fine, but the users of most other browsers had issues.
We'd rather not repeat this.

 

[crazybars]

Web P?

A lot of you guys are probably using Google Chrome, Web P works like a charm there.


A lot of Google's stuff is intentionally programmed to work like a charm on Google, but drag like a turd when it's used outside it's native Google environment. As in, it's made to interfere with their competitors and waste resources. Oh and it tends to be cloud or self updating garbage so using older versions of Google suites is not an option so it can break with no warning and force more resource wastage on more patches.

Believe me, Web P is a complete turd to program for outside of the Google network and equipment like Chrome.

Besdes, most of the Web and Social Media is coded to use JPegs and PNGs, Web P is as close to dead as you can get for a new image format simply because creating exceptions and options for it is mostly only pushed by Google, and if you pay attention to the news, none of the other public companies particularly like Google that much. They all hate the Google. A LOT.

*anti-competition lawsuits etc Cough Cough.