Weppy is a browser plugin set for Mac OS X Web browsers that allows them to display inline images that are in the WebP file format, a new image format from Google. WebP is similar to the well-known JPEG file format, except that WebP images are smaller than JPEG images, and in some cases have better quality.
What's New
Version 1.0.3:
Fixed the drawing in Chrome, again.
Requirements
PPC / Intel
Mac OS X 10.5 or later.
Any recent Web browser.
Be the first to recommend a similar software title.
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but the description of Weppy implies that you need this plug-in set to render WebP images in most any browser you run on your Mac. Not so.
Here is a Google web page with which you can test your browser(s) ability to display them.
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery.html
Safari Version 5.0.2 (6533.18.5) on my MBP displays these images just fine.
I'll assume that there are other Safari versions and other browsers in use which do not display WebP images, but try the address above. Also, installing the plug-ins, which I tried anyway, did not cause any problem, so please consider this comment a basic FYI.
Please login or create a new MacUpdate Member account to use this feature
Watch Lists are available to MacUpdate Desktop Members Upgrade Now
Download and auto-install
using MacUpdate Desktop. Save
time moving folders and cleaning-up.
Weppy is a browser plugin set for Mac OS X Web browsers that allows them to display inline images that are in the WebP file format, a new image format from Google. WebP is similar to the well-known JPEG file format, except that WebP images are smaller than JPEG images, and in some cases have better quality.
+10
Here is a Google web page with which you can test your browser(s) ability to display them.
http://code.google.com/speed/webp/gallery.html
Safari Version 5.0.2 (6533.18.5) on my MBP displays these images just fine.
I'll assume that there are other Safari versions and other browsers in use which do not display WebP images, but try the address above. Also, installing the plug-ins, which I tried anyway, did not cause any problem, so please consider this comment a basic FYI.
+1
+8
+2
+10
+213
Yoshinatsu reviewed on 07 Oct 2010
+1
+95
+6
+18
Why not support JPEG-2000 while we're at it? At least that one is definitively better than JPEG and an existing standard.