3 ms·

If JPEG XL was actually utilised they would not be deprecating it

• yakubin 4y ago
  How would a web developer use a feature, which is disabled by default? Should they put up a banner saying "in order to view this page, restart your browser with this command line parameter"?
  • lopkeny12ko 4y ago
    You'd use it the same way any other web feature without widespread browser support is rolled out--progressive enhancement, i.e. load it at runtime if heuristics indicate the necessary browser APIs are available, otherwise fall back to a "degraded" version.
    • tuxone 4y ago
      Not the parent commenter, though one thing is to support a feature that is somehow spread across some browser families and/or versions and another thing is to support a feature that is mostly unavailable on clients. It is probably not worth it form an economical point of view once you factor in the time spent developing/maintaining the feature plus (for this case) the additional required storage.
    • toastal 4y ago
      I use it with the picture element as the preferred codec. I found often AVIF was a bigger size than WebP and JXL so I stopped bothering as the encoding times are just awful.
• fuu_dev 4y ago
  I think the bug tracker around jpegXL support showed high interest and support for it already². Having it opt-in also does means most websites can't use it given that the vast majority of their userbase are on default settings. 2: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c79 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...