• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      not allowing webp is the answer.

      webp, as the name suggests, is a web image format. not a digital image format.

      webp is a fucking cancer and deserves to be put in the same place betamax and 8-tracks were left to rot.

      • laz@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        There are many valid criticisms one can make of webp; perhaps discussing the pros and cons. Rather than using those you instead went after it’s name not being linguistically accurate.

        A bold strategy cotton.

        • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The lossless mode is great (but more limited than PNG), the lossy mode sucks though. Like it only supports a quarter of the colour resolution compared to formats like JPEG.

          Also being a video format, it’s not actually tuned to store still images, it likes to blur/smear things.

          Edit: But if you’re using it for the intended purpose, low resolution previews, thumbnails and stuff like branding, it’s fine. I wouldn’t use it where quality matters.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          webp is fine for web publishing.

          I have a problem with websites that use middleware that makes webp masquerade as jpg or png. so when you go to save it locally, it’s a surprise webp.

          not only that, webp is a standard that google made and pushed into the web consortium. I explicitly hate anything Google forces on the Internet.