[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #57459: Reexamine the usefulness of file size meta for images

[WordPress Trac]

#57459: Reexamine the usefulness of file size meta for images
-------------------------+-----------------------------
 Reporter:  azaozz       |       Owner:  (none)
     Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal       |   Milestone:  Future Release
Component:  Media        |     Version:
 Severity:  normal       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |     Focuses:
-------------------------+-----------------------------

Comment (by mikeschroder):

 @azaozz Thank you for the ticket! I've been a fan of starting to store
 this so that WordPress can make better/faster decisions about what to do
 with images. But of course also open to change!

 I agree that WordPress should use it in core -- if it's not currently
 being used to load the locations where image sizes are being used, it'd be
 good to do that.

 Was it being used by alternate mime / WebP support before it was removed?
 That's one of the areas I can see it being particularly useful.

 It's possible I'm missing some of this from the previous ticket, and if
 so, apologies!

 A few questions:

 Replying to [ticket:57459 azaozz]:
 <snip>
 > #49412 also mentions some serious drawbacks:
 > - Image filesize meta is missing for all previously uploaded images.
 This is true! But will gradually be less of the case as new images have
 the information.

 > - It is unreliable as seemingly many hosting companies optimize images
 directly on the disc, without running WP, hence the cached file size
 becomes outdated/wrong soon after images are uploaded.
 Oh! I didn't know that any hosts changed stored files on disk.
 Do you know who does this, and with what methods?

 > - Many sites replace JPEGs with WebPs on the fly, making the stored file
 size unusable.
 Yes, some sites have CDNs that do type replacement. I thought that was
 part of the idea of the filter, though -- to make it so some of these
 services have additional information, or can store it.

 I think this is still useful for WordPress efforts to improve what is
 served, too.

 Do you know what that percentage of sites that use other services/plugins
 looks like? This might help for any use cases for doing that sort of thing
 in core, too.

 > In that terms the cached image file size seems too unreliable to even
 fulfill the expected use in plugins.
 Is this feedback you've received from plugin authors?


 > Furthermore not being useful in core, and the additional overhead when
 uploading images seems to make it a poor addition.
 How much is the additional overhead for images? Is that causing issues for
 users?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/57459#comment:2>
WordPress Trac <https://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress publishing platform