https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114532
--- Comment #31 from Tomaz Vajngerl <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #27) > The idea to save both formats (one as fallback) would only serve people who > have the ultimate goal to get to the original bytes at some unspecified > future time. What is the real use case, that would require someone to > desperately need the original embedded image bytes, as opposed to a > converted copy? I mean we agree that in the future we will enable WebP as a native format don't we? If NO then you wold have a point, if YES then this is IMHO the most smooth way to transition. Also throwing away the original image is always the last resort option, which we can aviod. > OTOH, there are *real* use cases, that would be served poorly by that > decision. > 1. People who chose WebP to save space. Well, PNG is not ideal for those; > but speculating that 110% is better for those who are unhappy with 100% is > not reasonable, right? And we possibly need to have a "convert lossy WebP > to" option with JPEG and PNG, like we have in Compress dialog - as you > suggest. If someone uses WebP to save space he will turn off saving the fallback images and by that agree that he know what the consequences are (the option is already available). Most people using that know the consequences. This option is currently not available to users. > 2. People who didn't even realize they used a WebP (IMO, the vast majority, > who e.g. dragged the images from a web page). They don't care about the > image original format at all. They would have to pay their disk space (that > +10%) for a couple of those who needed it. So what? I don't see your point - we already do this for a bunch of vector formats that add much more to the size. Also this is why I suggested the JPEG + WebP, which would only amount to 1/3 of the PNG size and we can safely do this because we don't destroy the original file. > And the last category of users would be in real danger then. You argue that > the idea behind saving both formats is being able to return to WebP at some > later stage - meaning that the fallback PNG would be dropped, right? But > that means that at some update, unprepared users would suddenly have their > existing documents dropping embedded PNGs, which they would not notice, > because they use a version that supports the format; but you have no control > who is their recipients are, and what they use. Of course, the decision to > drop PNG would happen when WebP support in ODF readers is reasonable, but > you can't guarantee 100% - and that means that *existing* edited documents > with pre-existing images can suddenly become unreadable on colleagues' > systems where they used to be working. It would be OK to argue "you use a > modern program that supports WebP; you have just inserted a WebP into a new > document; it's OK that this image is not shown on your colleague who uses > AOO 4.1" - but it is *not* OK to tell that about document that they had > happily edited for long time, and that broke after editing with updated LO, > without any image insertion. I don't think you have a point here, because this can be said for any kind of functionality added on top of ODF. We expect the users to upgrade in a reasonable time and if not, it's on them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
