Webogram: view of *.webp img problem

Created on 15 Mar 2018 · 9Comments · Source: zhukov/webogram

*.webp file on firefox not view:
https://t.me/tsmsChannel1/54

firefox

firefox-ver

and chrome show all *.webp file :
chrome

and windows app:
windows

bug

Source

javansolo

👎1

Most helpful comment

@javansolo This isn't a Telegram issue, it's a Firefox one. FF simply doesn't support .webp Images. Neither does any other browser that isn't using Blink (like Chrome and Opera).

I guess Webogram could display a placeholder with the option to download the image instead when it detects that it is being run in Firefox, but then again most image-viewing programs don't support webp either, so I'm not sure how much this would help…

Entropy0 on 9 May 2018

👍2

All 9 comments

Hm, libwebpjs was supposed to parse it I think.

stek29 on 15 Mar 2018

I checked the requests one by one. The request to get the file is not sent!

javansolo on 17 Mar 2018

@javansolo That's not how Telegram works :)
You won't see HTTP/HTTPS request with webp image.

stek29 on 17 Mar 2018

@stek29 I log all my requests on the client side before posting and after receiving.
I checked the requests one by one. The request to get the file is not sent on firefox!
other browsers send request and show *.webp. Just Firefox do not send request.

javansolo on 19 Mar 2018

😕1 👎1

Also several .webp (with less than 512x512 px) images in android app looks like a sticker.

askarter on 19 Mar 2018

@javansolo This isn't a Telegram issue, it's a Firefox one. FF simply doesn't support .webp Images. Neither does any other browser that isn't using Blink (like Chrome and Opera).

Entropy0 on 9 May 2018

👍2

^ I won't even consider this as an issue; WebP is an incredibly badly "designed" image format and it's in everyone's favor (well, maybe except Google) if it doesn't gain traction and dies off fast, making way to something which is actually worth the hassle.
The lossless part of WebP is superseded by FLIF.
The lossy part of WebP is literally worse than JPEG, as it can only work with 4:2:0-subsampled YUV, which introduces obvious distortion on many images regardless of the compression level. And where this isn't an issue, there are no significant improvements when compared to mozjpeg JPEG encoder.

magicgoose on 21 May 2018

The lossless part of WebP is superseded by FLIF.

Except that FLIF support is even worse than WebP.
Also, I highly doubt that Telegram would just go and convert their whole system to different format just because Firefox can't implement WebP support.
That's why webp js polyfill was introduced, but I guess it's broken.

stek29 on 23 May 2018