14 ms·

Unclear why Google would straight up reject an open standard. Considering their browser market share, jt feels like they can just kill a standard.

zamadatix 4y ago
Mozilla's statement gives a good summary of takes form both ends and why they decided their position was neutral https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#issuecomment-1409539985 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#is...
- edflsafoiewq 4y ago
  Unfortunately this basically means JPEG-XL is dead.
  - recuter 4y ago
    X-JPEG-XL, bereft of pixels.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    dead for the web. I still store various images in JPEG-XL, have support for it in my image-viewer of choice, can use it in Python's pillow (with a decoder plugin) and lots of other things I use to modify images. I still have to occasionally convert some images back to jpeg, but the savings from storing all of them in jpeg-xl instead is worth it to me (and avif support is spotty in the same areas, it is only really ahead in browsers and photoshop)
- pmarreck 4y ago
  > Overall, we don't see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone The progressive enhancement feature alone could be quite amazing, and its competitors don’t offer that- No more thumbnail generation! Its competitors can’t offer that! Do they realize how many security holes everyone’s use of “ImageTragick” generates, and how much caching infrastructure is devoted to images? also, how does he fail to see this as a potential competitive advantage over browser competitors?
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > Do they realize how many security holes everyone’s use of “ImageTragick” generates Can you expound on this?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1749/Imagemagick.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1749... No less than 630 vulnerabilities, and almost everyone uses this library, although VIPS is gaining tiny marketshare.
      - j16sdiz 4y ago
        everybody use im because the number of formats it supports. If you remove psd/ps/pdf/tiff supports, the number of vulnerabilities is halved. still not great, but this give some context to understanding the number.
        IshKebab 4y ago
        Only 315!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

zamadatix 4y ago

Mozilla's statement gives a good summary of takes form both ends and why they decided their position was neutral https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#issuecomment-1409539985 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#is...

edflsafoiewq 4y ago
Unfortunately this basically means JPEG-XL is dead.
- recuter 4y ago
  X-JPEG-XL, bereft of pixels.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  dead for the web. I still store various images in JPEG-XL, have support for it in my image-viewer of choice, can use it in Python's pillow (with a decoder plugin) and lots of other things I use to modify images. I still have to occasionally convert some images back to jpeg, but the savings from storing all of them in jpeg-xl instead is worth it to me (and avif support is spotty in the same areas, it is only really ahead in browsers and photoshop)
pmarreck 4y ago
> Overall, we don't see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone The progressive enhancement feature alone could be quite amazing, and its competitors don’t offer that- No more thumbnail generation! Its competitors can’t offer that! Do they realize how many security holes everyone’s use of “ImageTragick” generates, and how much caching infrastructure is devoted to images? also, how does he fail to see this as a potential competitive advantage over browser competitors?
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > Do they realize how many security holes everyone’s use of “ImageTragick” generates Can you expound on this?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1749/Imagemagick.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1749... No less than 630 vulnerabilities, and almost everyone uses this library, although VIPS is gaining tiny marketshare.
    - j16sdiz 4y ago
      everybody use im because the number of formats it supports. If you remove psd/ps/pdf/tiff supports, the number of vulnerabilities is halved. still not great, but this give some context to understanding the number.
      - IshKebab 4y ago
        Only 315!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]