Right now the img-command only supports .gif, .jpg, .jpeg or .png-files.
I'd like to ask if this list could be extended by by webp-images. They are widely supported by modern browsers (according to caniuse 96.45%, with a support list that seems to support all sensible browsers, since 5 years or so, and I hope we don't have too many Internet Explorer users).
…the request might or might not be related to me wanting to add one or two animated picture to my profiles here and there without having to deal with gif-compression or lacking apng-support of my image editor of choice and while keeping the loading times sensible for people with slower internet
I'd like to ask if this list could be extended by by webp-images. They are widely supported by modern browsers (according to caniuse 96.45%, with a support list that seems to support all sensible browsers, since 5 years or so, and I hope we don't have too many Internet Explorer users).
…the request might or might not be related to me wanting to add one or two animated picture to my profiles here and there without having to deal with gif-compression or lacking apng-support of my image editor of choice and while keeping the loading times sensible for people with slower internet
I'm a big proponent of using WebP on the internet!
My main question for this on RPR is how this is going to affect users when they realize WebP images can't be opened in a lot of conventional image viewing and editing software. Having strong modern browser support is different from things like being able to backup your profile and images and then viewing them on, for example, your Android phone because you don't have a computer.
I definitely am in favor of allowing it for the sake of reduced file sizes, I just don't have an answer to what problems we might run into that we'd have to keep in mind here.
My main question for this on RPR is how this is going to affect users when they realize WebP images can't be opened in a lot of conventional image viewing and editing software. Having strong modern browser support is different from things like being able to backup your profile and images and then viewing them on, for example, your Android phone because you don't have a computer.
I definitely am in favor of allowing it for the sake of reduced file sizes, I just don't have an answer to what problems we might run into that we'd have to keep in mind here.
Would that truly be a problem? I would assume that the people who choose to use WebP images on their own profile would know how to handle them and little would change for the rest.
If a less tech-savvy users had a webp image from somewhere from the web they would like to add to their profile, blocking WebP images (as it is right now) also wouldn't make life easier on them, because they would need to find a way to turn it into a png.
It might be a problem if you download an image from another user to either edit or just look at it locally, but I doubt that is a very common use-case.
To be honest, I expect very few users to actually use WebP, but since implementing it probably is just extending the whitelist of the img-command, I thought it was worth asking
If a less tech-savvy users had a webp image from somewhere from the web they would like to add to their profile, blocking WebP images (as it is right now) also wouldn't make life easier on them, because they would need to find a way to turn it into a png.
It might be a problem if you download an image from another user to either edit or just look at it locally, but I doubt that is a very common use-case.
To be honest, I expect very few users to actually use WebP, but since implementing it probably is just extending the whitelist of the img-command, I thought it was worth asking
It's super common in roleplaying communities for artwork and character designs and profiles to be sold (including for real-life money). So the chances of images being passed around between users who may not use devices compatible with wepb is incredibly high. 
As a web dev I'm exceptionally pro webp for what it's worth, but even working with these images myself professionally I run into a lot of issues with the format in terms of how everything is used. RPR won't be that big of an exception unfortunately.
As a web dev I'm exceptionally pro webp for what it's worth, but even working with these images myself professionally I run into a lot of issues with the format in terms of how everything is used. RPR won't be that big of an exception unfortunately.
I'm not very involved in that side of roleplaying, so that is something I totally underestimated. That, and your experience, is a good reason to be careful about webp! 
I'm still in favor, but I totally understand if that is reason enough not to do it.
I'm still in favor, but I totally understand if that is reason enough not to do it.
Oh I would love for RPR's IMG command be extended to Webp... I am a picture fanatic... I love visuals, just wish I was better at it.
But in the meanwhile, I shall use EzGif's WEBp to PNG Converter for my WEBp selections. Of course, EzGif also has a good selection of other tools that is free to use.
https://ezgif.com/webp-to-png
But in the meanwhile, I shall use EzGif's WEBp to PNG Converter for my WEBp selections. Of course, EzGif also has a good selection of other tools that is free to use.
https://ezgif.com/webp-to-png
You are on: Forums » Suggestions & Development Discussion » Extending the IMG command to accept WEBP-images
Moderators: Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus