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.
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”).
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.
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 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.
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.
Not better than jpegXL which has clearer free licensing.
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.
Firefox supports JXL just fine and chrome did support it, but pulled support shortly after.
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”).
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.
But why is it better? My experience is clicking on webp format opens in browser instead of my image viewer
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.
I wish everyone would get on the same page so it would also be better for the end user.
This right here sir. You missed this part.
I haven’t seen a single browser that didn’t support webp
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like you need upgrade your image viewer? Everything else is loading it fine.