• LucidLethargy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    People just really need to support it. It’s far better than jpg or png. It’s the go-to for web right now, that’s for sure.

      • LucidLethargy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only Apple supports this. Like, literally just Apple. I hate Chrome, and even Chrome doesn’t support this. Firefox? Yeah, zero support.

        So for these reasons it’s 100% not viable right now. If you get the support, I’ll consider it for my websites, and tell my colleagues about it, though.

          • LucidLethargy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is the source I used to originally validate my position: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl

            Let me know if it’s incorrect, I’d be very interested to learn of new options for the web space as a developer. This said, I googled Firefox and it came back with only “experimental support” for what I think may be an alpha release (version number ends in “a”).

            • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think you still need to enable JXL in the config, but it seems to display just fine once enabled.

              Adding support for JXL in windows was much more of a hassle and doesn’t always display properly in the file preview. Hopefully windows follows Apple’s step soon and adds native support.

              I guess as a Web developer it won’t matter until the JXL toggle is enabled by default though.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why is it better? My experience is clicking on webp format opens in browser instead of my image viewer

      • AlphaOmega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Webp supports 24 - bit RGB w 8 - bit Alpha channel. It also has better lossless and lossly compression. And it handles transparency and animation better than other formats at a smaller size.

        It is smaller, better, and faster.

        • balderdash@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish everyone would get on the same page so it would also be better for the end user.

        • Stumblinbear
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I haven’t seen a single browser that didn’t support webp

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lots of image viewers and media programs/apps dont support it currently. Which is a hassle when you’ve downloaded a webp and cant view or edit it.

        • balderdash@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a layperson. I don’t care about what technical benefits it has on paper when its impractical to use. So I have to agree with OP on this one.

      • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        It has more efficient lossy compression then JPEG. It has more efficient lossless compression then PNG. More efficient compression then gif and supports animation like gif. It allows for more colors then any of those 3. You can have a single for extension for photos graphics, and animations and costs less storage and bandwidth saving money and making a better ui.