Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock...
by cookiengineer on Thursday May 21, 2020 @12:23AM
(#23254777)
> https://caniuse.com/#search=webp
Nope you are right, when reading the linked issues, safari doesn’t have webp support.
Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock...
by ComputerGuru on Thursday May 21, 2020 @03:08AM
(#23255625)
Yeah, but that’s not the issue/question. Not supporting webp is fine, the important thing is that it doesn’t send an accept header that includes it. I don’t believe it does.
Re:In protest of the web{*} bulldozer, a response to websock...
by uryga on Thursday May 21, 2020 @10:26AM
(#23258722)
just had a friend with a Mac test it. when requesting foo.jpg (from an <img> tag), it sends:
Accept: image/png, image/svg+xml, image/*;q=0, video/*;q=0.8, */*;q=0.5
the server responds with foo.jpg.i also tested it in Firefox, which sends:
Accept: image/webp, */*
the server responds with foo-converted.webp.honestly, i'm not entirely sure how
image/*;q=0
*/*
etc are handled, but it works; i also briefly looked at the plugin's source, and i haven't found any special handling for Safari. btw, here's a test page linked in their docs: http://toste.dk/rh.php---
edit: looking at the generated .htaccess, it appears that WebP is served only if Accept contains an explicit `image/webp` (no wildcards), so that explains it.
But whatever the case is, Safari definately does not support webp and special exceptions need to be made to support this edge case.