3 ms·
> Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware Which is completely nonsensical. Hardware support is meaningless for web im
by lonjil 3y ago
> Their justification was more that adding it would be committing a lot of hardware
Which is completely nonsensical. Hardware support is meaningless for web images.
- pgeorgi 3y agoHardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation that sites could use at will to prove that there's demand for JPEG-XL support (and that the Chrome team provides, by the way).
- lonjil 3y agoNo it wasn't. WASM implementations are simply slower than native support. No browser uses HW accelerated decode for AVIF images or JXL. I think Safari might use HW for JPEG, but that's it across all browsers.
- pgeorgi 3y ago>> Hardware accelerated handling was one of the arguments used to oppose a WASM based implementation > No it wasn't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33935355: "Wasm does not have the hardware acceleration necessary to efficiently do codecs."
- chungy 3y agoThere's not much Google can do to stop sites from loading libjxl.wasm.