4 ms·

Have you actually tried to read them? They don't exist. https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/documentation.html https://j

Have you actually tried to read them? They don't exist. https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/documentation.html https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/documentation.html All we have is a whitepaper.

lifthrasiir 4y ago
I'm the author of the first independent reimplementation of JPEG XL [1] and I have definitely read all of them. Do you want to criticize the lack of openly available standards? In which case developers have given recent (and generally better) drafts to anyone interested so it's practically open, though a formal action by JPEG would be more desirable. [1] Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32885509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32885509
- ddevault 4y ago
  I'm going to say this as politely as I am able: closed standards can eat a big, steaming plate of shit. If it's not open, it doesn't exist. Period.
  - ksec 4y ago
    Sorry Drew, disagree here. But also not surprised. Open Standard does not mean Free Standard. As much as I would want the Final Spec 1.0 to be freely available.
  - feffe 4y ago
    There are many contradicting examples: The original JPEG standard is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 10918) with payed access. MP3 is also an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 13818-3). Perhaps not as relevant today but was once used by basically everyone. Access to the standard is only relevant to the implementer. It's of no consequence to users of a piece of software.
  - lifthrasiir 4y ago
    If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway.
    - ddevault 4y ago
      > If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. No. A closed standard is not a standard. > Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway. I think it might have helped, yes.
      - lifthrasiir 4y ago
        > I think it might have helped, yes. Please elaborate.
  - jonsneyers 4y ago
    As an editor of the JPEG XL spec, I fully agree that ISO's paywall policy is bad in many ways. But I wouldn't say it's a "closed" standard. Not any more closed than, say, the C++ standard or the Unicode standard. What makes a standard open is not the price the publisher puts on the copies, imo, but how transparent and open the process is to design and change the standard, and whether it is possible or not to implement and use the standard for free or not. In that regard, I would consider JPEG XL just as open a standard as C++ or Unicode. The HEVC spec is publicly available without paywall, but you cannot freely implement and use this standard since it's a patent encumbered, very non-royalty-free codec. I consider it a closed standard for that reason, and the spec being available for free (but not implementable without paying royalties) does not make much of a difference imo.
jonsneyers 4y ago
JPEG XL is an approved international standard: ISO/IEC 18181 https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html Anyone interested in doing an independent implementation can use this specification (or a recent draft of the upcoming 2nd edition). Alternatively, you can look at the source code of one of the three JPEG XL implementations currently available: libjxl, J40, and jxlatte. These are all open-source, and in a way that's an executable specification.
- Mindless2112 4y ago
  Where does one find a recent draft?
- ddevault 4y ago
  ISO standards are not standards. Closed standards are not standards. Implementations are not a standard. This is a bad joke.
  - erk__ 4y ago
    What is a closed standard from your point of view? Is it simply just one that cost money to access? If I made a language standard on my own it would not be a open standard from quite a few orgs point of view. It is annoying that you are just throwing around vague use of words without giving a clear definition.
    - ddevault 4y ago
      A closed standard is not a standard. That's it. It's a document of little to no relevance that may as well not exist.
      - sir_strcmp 4y ago
      - erk__ 4y ago
        You are being incredibly inarticulate, or you are just arguing in bad faith. What is a closed standard? Also the world run on those documents with little to no relevance, no matter how much people dislike how you need to pay to view them. It is a sad state of affairs. If you actually wanted to make changes you would lobby for it, you are just saying they don't exist which is of little help to change the status quo.

lifthrasiir 4y ago

I'm the author of the first independent reimplementation of JPEG XL [1] and I have definitely read all of them. Do you want to criticize the lack of openly available standards? In which case developers have given recent (and generally better) drafts to anyone interested so it's practically open, though a formal action by JPEG would be more desirable. [1] Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32885509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32885509

ddevault 4y ago
I'm going to say this as politely as I am able: closed standards can eat a big, steaming plate of shit. If it's not open, it doesn't exist. Period.
- ksec 4y ago
  Sorry Drew, disagree here. But also not surprised. Open Standard does not mean Free Standard. As much as I would want the Final Spec 1.0 to be freely available.
- feffe 4y ago
  There are many contradicting examples: The original JPEG standard is an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 10918) with payed access. MP3 is also an ISO standard (ISO/IEC 13818-3). Perhaps not as relevant today but was once used by basically everyone. Access to the standard is only relevant to the implementer. It's of no consequence to users of a piece of software.
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    > If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this firsthand. No. A closed standard is not a standard. > Besides from that technicality though, do you really think that publicly available standards would have changed the situation? I don't think so---Chrome (and to be clear, most other browsers) has supported tons of closed standards anyway. I think it might have helped, yes.
    - lifthrasiir 4y ago
      > I think it might have helped, yes. Please elaborate.
- jonsneyers 4y ago
  As an editor of the JPEG XL spec, I fully agree that ISO's paywall policy is bad in many ways. But I wouldn't say it's a "closed" standard. Not any more closed than, say, the C++ standard or the Unicode standard. What makes a standard open is not the price the publisher puts on the copies, imo, but how transparent and open the process is to design and change the standard, and whether it is possible or not to implement and use the standard for free or not. In that regard, I would consider JPEG XL just as open a standard as C++ or Unicode. The HEVC spec is publicly available without paywall, but you cannot freely implement and use this standard since it's a patent encumbered, very non-royalty-free codec. I consider it a closed standard for that reason, and the spec being available for free (but not implementable without paying royalties) does not make much of a difference imo.

jonsneyers 4y ago

JPEG XL is an approved international standard: ISO/IEC 18181 https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html Anyone interested in doing an independent implementation can use this specification (or a recent draft of the upcoming 2nd edition). Alternatively, you can look at the source code of one of the three JPEG XL implementations currently available: libjxl, J40, and jxlatte. These are all open-source, and in a way that's an executable specification.

Mindless2112 4y ago
Where does one find a recent draft?
ddevault 4y ago
ISO standards are not standards. Closed standards are not standards. Implementations are not a standard. This is a bad joke.
- erk__ 4y ago
  What is a closed standard from your point of view? Is it simply just one that cost money to access? If I made a language standard on my own it would not be a open standard from quite a few orgs point of view. It is annoying that you are just throwing around vague use of words without giving a clear definition.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    A closed standard is not a standard. That's it. It's a document of little to no relevance that may as well not exist.
    - sir_strcmp 4y ago
    - erk__ 4y ago
      You are being incredibly inarticulate, or you are just arguing in bad faith. What is a closed standard? Also the world run on those documents with little to no relevance, no matter how much people dislike how you need to pay to view them. It is a sad state of affairs. If you actually wanted to make changes you would lobby for it, you are just saying they don't exist which is of little help to change the status quo.