5 ms·

The reasons stated are: - Experimental flags and code should not remain indefinitely - There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue expe

The reasons stated are: - Experimental flags and code should not remain indefinitely - There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL - The new image format does not bring sufficient incremental benefits over existing formats to warrant enabling it by default - By removing the flag and the code in M110, it reduces the maintenance burden and allows us to focus on improving existing formats in Chrome https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reasons https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reason...

vonbon 4y ago
Thanks, that all sounds fairly reasonable then.
- gsich 4y ago
  Not really. It was hidden behind a flag, so where should the "entire ecosystem" (who?) show interest?
  - vonbon 4y ago
    Couldn't any interested parties just enable the flag for testing? That doesn't seem a insurmountable challenge, given that the code is, or was, already in there.
    - hmry 4y ago
      Well, I am interested in saving server bandwidth by delivering smaller image files at the same quality. I can't enable a flag on my user's browsers though. :)
  - sk65535 4y ago
    you know, industry / browser people talk to each other. But not necessary on social media. Or publicly.
    - croes 4y ago
      Yep, and they wanted support for JPEG XL
  - phillipseamore 4y ago
    The ecosystem are the other browser vendors.
    - usefulcat 4y ago
      ..who together compose what, like 10% of the browser market?
      - phillipseamore 4y ago
        At 100% depending on the platform. For years many have complained about Chrome moving too fast and shipping stuff without a consensus with the other vendors, this might signal a change from that.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Waiting for consensus from other browsers while ignoring consensus from the broader software industry is not what most people meant.
    - iggldiggl 4y ago
      By that logic WebP should have never got out of the door, because all non-Chromium browsers were explicitly reticent in implementing support for it and only finally started doing so with several years delay (in the case of Apple several years even more). But of course WebP was Google's own image format…
      - phillipseamore 4y ago
        It took the other browsers up to a decade to support WebP, who wants to do that again? JPEG-XL is based on the Google Pik proposal among other things and they were active in the spec'ing - there is no conspiracy here.
        iggldiggl 4y ago
        Yes, fair enough, parts of Google contributed to JPEG-XL, too. But the basic gist remains – for WebP they decided it was the greatest thing since slice bread and enabled it regardless of what the rest of the "ecosystem" thought, whereas now all of a sudden they're supposedly that much concerned, even though Chrome is by far and large the majority of that ecosystem, Apple prefers their own format choices anyway, and it's not as if it's not also a chicken-and-egg situation.

vonbon 4y ago

Thanks, that all sounds fairly reasonable then.

gsich 4y ago
Not really. It was hidden behind a flag, so where should the "entire ecosystem" (who?) show interest?
- vonbon 4y ago
  Couldn't any interested parties just enable the flag for testing? That doesn't seem a insurmountable challenge, given that the code is, or was, already in there.
  - hmry 4y ago
    Well, I am interested in saving server bandwidth by delivering smaller image files at the same quality. I can't enable a flag on my user's browsers though. :)
- sk65535 4y ago
  you know, industry / browser people talk to each other. But not necessary on social media. Or publicly.
  - croes 4y ago
    Yep, and they wanted support for JPEG XL
- phillipseamore 4y ago
  The ecosystem are the other browser vendors.
  - usefulcat 4y ago
    ..who together compose what, like 10% of the browser market?
    - phillipseamore 4y ago
      At 100% depending on the platform. For years many have complained about Chrome moving too fast and shipping stuff without a consensus with the other vendors, this might signal a change from that.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Waiting for consensus from other browsers while ignoring consensus from the broader software industry is not what most people meant.
  - iggldiggl 4y ago
    By that logic WebP should have never got out of the door, because all non-Chromium browsers were explicitly reticent in implementing support for it and only finally started doing so with several years delay (in the case of Apple several years even more). But of course WebP was Google's own image format…
    - phillipseamore 4y ago
      It took the other browsers up to a decade to support WebP, who wants to do that again? JPEG-XL is based on the Google Pik proposal among other things and they were active in the spec'ing - there is no conspiracy here.
      - iggldiggl 4y ago
        Yes, fair enough, parts of Google contributed to JPEG-XL, too. But the basic gist remains – for WebP they decided it was the greatest thing since slice bread and enabled it regardless of what the rest of the "ecosystem" thought, whereas now all of a sudden they're supposedly that much concerned, even though Chrome is by far and large the majority of that ecosystem, Apple prefers their own format choices anyway, and it's not as if it's not also a chicken-and-egg situation.