Not a bug webp <> jpg

That’s unfortunate but we decided that times and standards have moved on sufficiently that a sheer majority of people will not be affected by this and it isn’t worth the effort or storage space to maintain two copies for approximately 5% of users (and dwindling) who may need a fallback.

On your own forum, optimising images is optional and admins can decide whether it’s suitable for their particular niche whether to provide webp or not.
 
Chris D said:
That’s unfortunate but we decided that times and standards have moved on sufficiently that a sheer majority of people will not be affected by this and it isn’t worth the effort or storage space to maintain two copies for approximately 5% of users (and dwindling) who may need a fallback.

On your own forum, optimising images is optional and admins can decide whether it’s suitable for their particular niche whether to provide webp or not.
Click to expand...
understood.

I am the type that upgrades software and hardware last.
Reason: faster experience at low cost and less planned obsolescence.
 
Kleazy said:
Safari Version 15.6.1 (15613.3.9.1.16, 15613) on Catalina 10.15.7
Click to expand...
I assume you are on old Mac hardware that doesn't support newer operating systems (Catalina is 4+ years old at this point). Girlfriend had a MacBook Pro that hasn't supported a new macOS for about 2 years now and it recently fell off a table and screen broke, so she got a new laptop and I turned her old one into a pseudo desktop machine for kids (monitor, keyboard, mouse, laptop itself closed and hidden away). I figured since this thing was a clean install of an operating system, why not see if I could force the latest macOS onto it. Low and behold it worked without too much trouble. Obviously do it 100% at your own risk (if you even want a newer OS), but anecdotally it just worked for me:

OpenCore Legacy Patcher

Experience macOS just like before
dortania.github.io
 
I don't think WebP is nonsense, in many cases it can have a significant size advantage over JPEG on common setups (eg. libjpeg/libjpeg-turbo), but as you've correctly pointed out:
The margin can be a a lot smaller for optimized JPEG images (eg, mozjpeg, etc.).

So for the "average XenForo customer" (and their users) WebP is beneficial.

I share your concerns about browsers not supporting WebP - ideally every "modern" image format should have some kind of fallback to also cater for older browsers.
But implementing this on the server side can be complicated and waste resources (by keeping copies in multiple formats around "forever").

Another approach (that puts the burden on the user) could be a JavaScript polyfill:
github.com

GitHub - chase-moskal/webp-hero: browser polyfill for the webp image format

browser polyfill for the webp image format. Contribute to chase-moskal/webp-hero development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com github.com
This is slow and inefficient, but at least would allow older browsers (though not stone-age browsers that do not support PNG data URIs or Canvas) to still display content images (doesn't work for background images, but background images shouldn't be used for content at all anyway).
 
Kirby said:
I don't think WebP is nonsense, in many cases it can have a significant size advantage over JPEG on common setups (eg. libjpeg/libjpeg-turbo), but as you've correctly pointed out:
The margin can be a a lot smaller for optimized JPEG images (eg, mozjpeg, etc.).

So for the "average XenForo customer" (and their users) WebP is beneficial.

I share your concerns about browsers not supporting WebP - ideally every "modern" image format should have some kind of fallback to also cater for older browsers.
But implementing this on the server side can be complicated and waste resources (by keeping copies in multiple formats around "forever").

Another approach (that puts the burden on the user) could be a JavaScript polyfill:
github.com

GitHub - chase-moskal/webp-hero: browser polyfill for the webp image format

browser polyfill for the webp image format. Contribute to chase-moskal/webp-hero development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com github.com
This is slow and inefficient, but at least would allow older browsers (though not stone-age browsers that do not support PNG data URIs or Canvas) to still display content images (doesn't work for background images, but background images shouldn't be used for content at all anyway).
Click to expand...

Keeping two copies and let the browser pick what works.
I do it for wordpress and for my proprietary classifieds.

Image storage size doubles.

And exactly how you put it the benefits varies. A well compressed jpg benefits less and sometimes is actually smaller in my classifieds. The main reason I use webp is to please the overlord google for better search indexing. Cost of doing web business.
 
In the end, it is easier to handle this on blogs. You control the content there. With forums, you have very little control. You can’t control what format your users use for screenshots, text content screenshots and complex images. Photography/image-based communities are likely to benefit from keeping this conversion disabled looking at the high compression XenForo seems to be doing on these images and I am not sure if it is going to be configurable.

WebP is a good universal option for user generated content websites where image quality is not really that important. As long as the image is legible, it should be fine for a lot of communities as they save on storage and bandwidth costs.

JXL is probably a better option as it handle more types of images with even better size/quality benefits but it is probably not going to be an option for a while. Thankfully, Apple users are already onboard. Google is being the weird guy here.
 
Kleazy said:
Keeping two copies and let the browser pick what works.
I do it for wordpress and for my proprietary classifieds.

Image storage size doubles.

And exactly how you put it the benefits varies. A well compressed jpg benefits less and sometimes is actually smaller in my classifieds. The main reason I use webp is to please the overlord google for better search indexing. Cost of doing web business.
Click to expand...

I use PNG and JPG only.

Technically there are no benefits in doubling my storage space.

If Google minds that, I get the extra benefit of my server having lower load (fewer visitors) - LOL :)

Waiting on AVIF (Wiki link) to become widely adopted and staying five years ahead of my time. :)

Relja
 
digitalpoint said:
I assume you are on old Mac hardware that doesn't support newer operating systems (Catalina is 4+ years old at this point).
Click to expand...
It is one of the beauties of the MAC OS environment that near 5+ yrs later.. it's still somewhat stable (unlike some other operating systems).
Many people simply don't have the funds to upgrade because it's the "latest and greatest ****". If it works.. it works.
I personally have no desire to invest another $1000K in a computer that offers no more ability than simple "bowser extensions". It's a fault that many developers in this day and age fall into. Not everyone has the financial incentive to keep up with the top technology. Hell that should be readily apparent, Granted... there does have to be a "lower limit".... but considering how widespread 5 year old "OS options" are still in use, and the fact that XF still is in the stone-ages in their PHP versioning requirements... does not that shoot a red flag to the top of the mast? I mean really.. if XF would settle on a PHP 8.1 or higher requirement... that may hold water... but the insistence to support VERY OLD versions of PHP kinda negates the "you need a new browser" argument.
I fully acknowledge that there reaches a point when a script has to say "your preference is TOO old".... but currently XF tries to thread that line... and in many ways it doesn't benefit XF... Again... I acknowledge the fact that they need to reach a point in which they say "your crap is outdated by modern standards". It is ultimately up to the end user (the actual site participant) if they choose to keep their equipment up to a current level.
 
Last edited:
TPerry said:
It is one of the beauties of the MAC OS environment that near 5+ yrs later.. it's still somewhat stable (unlike some other operating systems).
Many people simply don't have the funds to upgrade because it's the "latest and greatest ****". If it works.. it works.
I personally have no desire to invest another $1000K in a computer that offers no more ability than simple "bowser extensions". It's a fault that many developers in this day and age fall into. Not everyone has the financial incentive to keep up with the top technology. Hell that should be readily apparent, Granted... there does have to be a "lower limit".... but considering how widespread 5 year old "OS options" are still in use, and the fact that XF still is in the stone-ages in their PHP versioning requirements... does not that shoot a red flag to the top of the mast? I mean really.. if XF would settle on a PHP 8.1 or higher requirement... that may hold water... but the insistence to support VERY OLD versions of PHP kinda negates the "you need a new browser" argument.
I fully acknowledge that there reaches a point when a script has to say "your preference is TOO old".... but currently XF tries to thread that line... and in many ways it doesn't benefit XF... Again... I acknowledge the fact that they need to reach a point in which they say "your crap is outdated by modern standards". It is ultimately up to the end user (the actual site participant) if they choose to keep their equipment up to a current level.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

In 2014 I bought an I7 MacBook with somewhat max specs.
Have replaced the battery 2 or 3 times so far. While doing that I blow out the dust inside and she is still screaming along. I see zero reason to upgrade my computer any time soon. Same with my phones, cars and everything really. Buy quality once and keep for many years.

On my production web server I run the latest fastest I can afford and switch hardware every 2 years and keep software on -current state.

What is the attraction to constantly buy new what is not broken?
 
tbh, webp support is not something that should require buying a new machine. i am not sure if chrome or firefox are still updated on versions where macos users cannot access webp on safari. i have a fairly old machine and i have access to browsers that support webp, avif and even jxl. it struggles with heavy av1 videos but they do work. webp is a software problem not a hardware one. any computer built in last 10-15 years should have enough processing power to display webp images.
 
TPerry said:
It is one of the beauties of the MAC OS environment that near 5+ yrs later.. it's still somewhat stable (unlike some other operating systems).
Click to expand...
Big Sur is available for nearly all Macs made within the last decade (2013+), and the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox still support Catalina.

TPerry said:
if XF would settle on a PHP 8.1 or higher requirement... that may hold water... but the insistence to support VERY OLD versions of PHP kinda negates the "you need a new browser" argument.
Click to expand...
Our PHP requirements are set at the beginning of the development cycle for each minor release, and are based on usage statistics just like our browser requirements. Unfortunately usage of older PHP versions is much higher than the usage of browsers without WebP support (~3.29%). WebP conversion is still entirely optional anyway, but we are considering introducing a polyfill.
 
Jeremy P said:
Big Sur is available for nearly all Macs made within the last decade
Click to expand...
Yep, but my late 2012 Mac Mini has been running fine for the last 11 years only requiring a fan replacement and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD from the old spinning platter (that also lasted 11 years and only done because I had a spare drive laying around).
Jeremy P said:
Unfortunately usage of older PHP versions is much higher than the usage of browsers without WebP support
Click to expand...
How many of those are XF 1.x installs that couldn't run a newer version of PHP anyway and most are unlikely to upgrade?


Jeremy P said:
WebP conversion is still entirely optional
Click to expand...
And this is the important aspect. As long as it's optional and not forced that's great. Thanks!
 
TPerry said:
How many of those are XF 1.x installs that couldn't run a newer version of PHP anyway and most are unlikely to upgrade?
Click to expand...
Precisely zero. Aside from the fact that we didn’t start reporting server statistics until version 2.0.2, we actually base our decisions primarily on the reporters who are using the current major version as they are more likely to upgrade.

Based on current statistics it may be the case that 3.0 ships with a minimum requirement of PHP 8.0, though we’d like to see a few more people upgrading from 7.x first before we commit. I think something like 30% of installs are still using PHP 7.x so that’s shutting the door on a fair few customers.

We’ll see.
 
Just as an addendum to the above:

1702376069315.webp

This is the PHP versions used by XenForo 2.2 customers. PHP 7.4 as a minimum for 3.0 looks more likely, though we'll reassess as time goes on.
 
Top Bottom