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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it bad? Like what should I use instead on my website for images and icons?
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.
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.