3 ms·
Being supported by some browsers is useless. It needs to be supported by all the major browsers, as shown by webp. Apple did not support JPEG XL, based on past
by jsnell 4y ago
Being supported by some browsers is useless. It needs to be supported by all the major browsers, as shown by webp.
Apple did not support JPEG XL, based on past history was unlikely to do so, and despite what you say about Google having the most leverage they have none on Apple. If Apple doesn't want something supported, no iOS browser will support it. And if no iOS browser supports a format, it is not going to be useful in production.
I do find it hilarious that all the people who complained about Chrome supporting webp then went on to complain about Chrome not supporting JPEG XL. They're both Google-created formats not widely supported by the ecosystem!
- RedShift1 4y agoJPEG XL is not Google created. The problem here is that there's a conflict of interest, Google has its own image formats and they're being petty about competition.
- zinekeller 4y agoJXL was partly derived from Google technologies although it went to ISO standardisation.
- RedShift1 4y agoHeh that makes it even worse because the people who decided to remove JPEG XL from Chrome claimed it was technically inferior :')
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoOk so one is controlled by Google and one isn't, the idea that any argument over them was ridiculous seems weird given this salient difference.
- jsnell 4y agoOf the people listed as the main authors of the JPEG XL spec on Wikipedia, I believe 2 out of 3 worked at Google. What's the "conflict of interest" you're talking about? AVIF? How is that their own format when JPEG XL isn't? If Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft wanted JPEG XL and committed to supporting it, I bet Chrome could be convinced to restore the support. But AFAIK those companies have made no such commitment, or even any kind of indication of intent. Why should we have another image format that gets only implemented in Chrome, not the wider web ecosystem? (Of course, they too are members of the foundation building AVIF. Oh my God, so many conflicts of interest!)
- ksec 4y ago>Of the people listed as the main authors of the JPEG XL spec on Wikipedia, I believe 2 out of 3 worked at Google. Google Research. Which is similar to Microsoft Research.
- jsnell 4y agoI don't know what distinction you're trying to draw there.
- joveian 4y agoMozilla is neutral on JPEG XL: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#issuecomment-1409539985 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/522#is...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago>And if no iOS browser supports a format, it is not going to be useful in production. graphics heavy sites often optimize for various platforms instead of serving to just one standard.
- kps 4y ago> I do find it hilarious that all the people who complained about Chrome supporting webp then went on to complain about Chrome not supporting JPEG XL. They are different formats with different attributes, so it's reasonable to distinguish between them. JPEG XL is a general purpose image format. It's reasonable to want browsers to display it. WebP and AVIF are special-purpose formats, designed to leverage their corresponding video decoders, for delivery of ephemeral images to end-user devices. It's reasonable to object to limited formats that are manifestly crowding out general ones.
- b112 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL How is it Google created?
- jsnell 4y agoIt was based on Google's submission, the majority of the authors are Google employees, and the majority of the commits to the reference implementation were written by Google employees. You mean other than that? That's not to say they're the only contributors or should have all the credit. But it does make the "Google is trying to kill an open standard to push their own format" narrative here completely moronic.