5 ms·

I do find it slightly strange that saving a few bytes from the size of an image is suddenly of such pressing importance that we need to resort to all these hack

I do find it slightly strange that saving a few bytes from the size of an image is suddenly of such pressing importance that we need to resort to all these hacks. JPEG2000 has been available in some browsers for years and years now, but I've yet to see any site selectively sending it to supporting browsers to save bandwidth, or anybody advocating for doing that. JPEG2000 first became available in browsers 10+ years ago when connection speeds were very much slower than today, so the benefit of using it was even greater back then, yet it saw very limited adoption. Also I note that the saving from using webp compared to the optimised jpeg is only 18kb, meanwhile the page wastes 40kb of bandwidth on a Google analytics script. What Google gives with one hand it takes away with the other.

takeda 12y ago
Also the appropriate way of declaring what browser supports should be done through the Accept http header.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
idlewan 12y ago
> JPEG2000 first became available in browsers 10+ years ago Apart from Safari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Application_support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Application_support), I'm not sure it's supported at all.
- anon1385 12y ago
  Chrome is the only browser to support WebP, as far as I know (I don't really count modern Opera or Chrome on Android as separate browsers). That was why I made the comparison.
  - cbr 12y ago
    And I guess if Safari had supported WebP back when Chrome and Safari were on the same codebase you would haven't counted them as separate browsers either?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
WallWextra 12y ago
JPEG 2000 isn't actually better than plain old jpeg.
- anon1385 12y ago
  That has become the modern accepted wisdom among some people, yes. There are some people today (e.g Mozilla) arguing that WebP isn't better than plain old jpeg either. So maybe in 5-10 years everybody will "know" that WebP was never better than jpeg. Anyway, it would clearly have had one very significant advantage: support for transparency.

takeda 12y ago

Also the appropriate way of declaring what browser supports should be done through the Accept http header.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

idlewan 12y ago

> JPEG2000 first became available in browsers 10+ years ago Apart from Safari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Application_support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000#Application_support), I'm not sure it's supported at all.

anon1385 12y ago
Chrome is the only browser to support WebP, as far as I know (I don't really count modern Opera or Chrome on Android as separate browsers). That was why I made the comparison.
- cbr 12y ago
  And I guess if Safari had supported WebP back when Chrome and Safari were on the same codebase you would haven't counted them as separate browsers either?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

WallWextra 12y ago

JPEG 2000 isn't actually better than plain old jpeg.

anon1385 12y ago
That has become the modern accepted wisdom among some people, yes. There are some people today (e.g Mozilla) arguing that WebP isn't better than plain old jpeg either. So maybe in 5-10 years everybody will "know" that WebP was never better than jpeg. Anyway, it would clearly have had one very significant advantage: support for transparency.