5 ms·
The only thing worse than an image that won't display without javascript is an image that doesn't even exist without webassembly. I get that google has removed
by superkuh 4y ago
The only thing worse than an image that won't display without javascript is an image that doesn't even exist without webassembly. I get that google has removed support so you're looking for other options but maybe consider putting up an announcement on your site(s) that google chrome is not supported instead of making it worse for all other browsers.
- bob1029 4y ago> I get that google has removed support so you're looking for other options but maybe consider putting up an announcement on your site(s) that google chrome is not supported instead of making it worse for all other browsers. I have no horse in the JPEG XL race. I am not even necessarily focused on images. I see value in using WASM (and/or JS) for application-specific codecs. That is all. None of my decisions have any ability to make things "worse" for other browsers, especially when those browser vendors never intended to support my application-specific codec to begin with.
- charcircuit 4y ago>making it worse for all other browsers. What other browsers? Desktop Firefox users who changed a flag in about:config? That's practically nobody.
- h4x0rr 4y agoAlso, chrome(/ium) has like 70% market share. Not supporting it is pretty much the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
- superkuh 4y agoIf you're only making websites for profit, yes. If you're a human person making websites for other humans then only targeting the standards breaking Chrome is bad for you and them. Gotta be the change you want to see in the world. Even if you know everyone else is doing the wrong thing for profit.