3 ms·

JPEG-XL is a > good, non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard yet they won't be supporting it. Whether you want to buy it or not, de-facto format

JPEG-XL is a > good, non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard yet they won't be supporting it. Whether you want to buy it or not, de-facto format on the web is JPEG and only JPEG, thanks to the historical momentum. Even webp is still expendable, because Mozilla and Microsoft hold long enough. And AVIF isn't being used anywhere, yet. So no, it isn't in other vendors' disinterest to drop support for Webp and AVIF, because JPEG would continue to be de-facto in that case.

mort96 4y ago
Of course JPEG-XL is a good, (maybe?) non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard, but with this move from Google, it's no longer a candidate to be a universal one (unless Google reverses their decision when the reference implementation library becomes more mature). AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard.
- kasabali 4y ago
  > AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard. Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status. And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG as the ubiquitous standard than to replace it with a technically superior but equally open alternative? I'm not understanding what you want, or who you think gains something by shooting down the best candidate to replace JPEG.
    - kasabali 4y ago
      > Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. I'm not talking in business context, I'm talking about in diplomacy context. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque." (and it's not that they'd be losing anything in business context either, by supporting jpeg-only de-facto) I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.
      - mort96 4y ago
        That's exactly what I don't understand I suppose. AVIF has nothing to do with Google, so I'm not sure why it's a retaliation. Dropping support for WebP and WebM would be more of a retaliation, since those are actually formats developed and pushed by Google. But Google has nothing to lose and everything to gain if other browsers kill AVIF and leave WebP as the only JPEG replacement. But alright, I will move on. You don't have to respond.
        kasabali 4y ago
        > AVIF has nothing to do with Google, That's where we disagree, then.

mort96 4y ago

Of course JPEG-XL is a good, (maybe?) non-patent-encumbered, open image encoding standard, but with this move from Google, it's no longer a candidate to be a universal one (unless Google reverses their decision when the reference implementation library becomes more mature). AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard.

kasabali 4y ago
> AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard. Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status. And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.
- mort96 4y ago
  Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG as the ubiquitous standard than to replace it with a technically superior but equally open alternative? I'm not understanding what you want, or who you think gains something by shooting down the best candidate to replace JPEG.
  - kasabali 4y ago
    > Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. I'm not talking in business context, I'm talking about in diplomacy context. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque." (and it's not that they'd be losing anything in business context either, by supporting jpeg-only de-facto) I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.
    - mort96 4y ago
      That's exactly what I don't understand I suppose. AVIF has nothing to do with Google, so I'm not sure why it's a retaliation. Dropping support for WebP and WebM would be more of a retaliation, since those are actually formats developed and pushed by Google. But Google has nothing to lose and everything to gain if other browsers kill AVIF and leave WebP as the only JPEG replacement. But alright, I will move on. You don't have to respond.
      - kasabali 4y ago
        > AVIF has nothing to do with Google, That's where we disagree, then.