2 ms·

Neither Mozilla nor Apple ever finished the implementations enough to even enable them, and they aren't being worked on. That doesn't seem like a lot of intere

Neither Mozilla nor Apple ever finished the implementations enough to even enable them, and they aren't being worked on. That doesn't seem like a lot of interest as far as anyone can tell. The main interest has been from Facebook and Adobe, afaik. If it's wrong it can be redone later. It isn't a blood oath never to reimplement it.

riedel 4y ago
From what I read Firefox is also just linking libjxl , so what kind of finishing should they have been doing? Google gave it, Google took it. If nobody fixes the monopoly, this will be the future of all web standards.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  libjxl still exists, it's still available. The way this gets fixed for real, at least to me, is to get mozilla/apple to have skin in the game.
biftek 4y ago
Come on, how often has Google been the first to enable new browser features forcing the hand of Mozilla and Apple? Google know they are the gatekeepers of web tech. This is just a way for them to kill the format
- DannyBee 4y ago
  People complain to high heaven google shouldn't get to decide. Great, so then convince the others, don't rely on Google to do it. As for killing the format - Google maintains libjxl, the jpeg-xl reference impl, and has for years. But like, if the people maintaining the reference impl for years really want to kill the format, maybe we should at least understand why? They've been in the thick of it, after all. Controlling an image format is basically worthless for a company like Google. Especially since they are always royalty free so far. The cost to Google in bandwidth/storage/etc of images is much greater than than they could ever make off control. (Unlike, say, Adobe or someone)
PaulHoule 4y ago
I'd say this. There are two reasons why you would use a higher compressing image format. (1) To save network bandwidth, (2) to save storage. Adding AVIF, WebP, and JPEG XL to a JPG file help with (1). To help with (2) you have to be able to replace the JPG with something new. Supporting more than one new file format is counterproductive. It took me years to decide WebP was well-supported enough to be worth using but until very recently it still got a major caveat https://caniuse.com/webp https://caniuse.com/webp that "Safari 14.0 – 15.6 has full support of WebP, but requires macOS 11 Big Sur or later." With new image formats Apple decides it is a reason why you should buy a new machine and decides not to add a decoder to the library that works with older processors.

riedel 4y ago

From what I read Firefox is also just linking libjxl , so what kind of finishing should they have been doing? Google gave it, Google took it. If nobody fixes the monopoly, this will be the future of all web standards.

DannyBee 4y ago
libjxl still exists, it's still available. The way this gets fixed for real, at least to me, is to get mozilla/apple to have skin in the game.

biftek 4y ago

Come on, how often has Google been the first to enable new browser features forcing the hand of Mozilla and Apple? Google know they are the gatekeepers of web tech. This is just a way for them to kill the format

DannyBee 4y ago
People complain to high heaven google shouldn't get to decide. Great, so then convince the others, don't rely on Google to do it. As for killing the format - Google maintains libjxl, the jpeg-xl reference impl, and has for years. But like, if the people maintaining the reference impl for years really want to kill the format, maybe we should at least understand why? They've been in the thick of it, after all. Controlling an image format is basically worthless for a company like Google. Especially since they are always royalty free so far. The cost to Google in bandwidth/storage/etc of images is much greater than than they could ever make off control. (Unlike, say, Adobe or someone)

PaulHoule 4y ago

I'd say this. There are two reasons why you would use a higher compressing image format. (1) To save network bandwidth, (2) to save storage. Adding AVIF, WebP, and JPEG XL to a JPG file help with (1). To help with (2) you have to be able to replace the JPG with something new. Supporting more than one new file format is counterproductive. It took me years to decide WebP was well-supported enough to be worth using but until very recently it still got a major caveat https://caniuse.com/webp https://caniuse.com/webp that "Safari 14.0 – 15.6 has full support of WebP, but requires macOS 11 Big Sur or later." With new image formats Apple decides it is a reason why you should buy a new machine and decides not to add a decoder to the library that works with older processors.