3 ms·

As said before, the commiter of the JXL removal is an AOM contributor, and the manager who approved it has given presentations on AV1. This is politics, not a

As said before, the commiter of the JXL removal is an AOM contributor, and the manager who approved it has given presentations on AV1. This is politics, not a technical discussion.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Half of tech is politics. Why else are all the measurements around here in feet instead of meters?
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Does "here" mean HN? YC is an US company, and its network is US-based.
orra 3y ago
That's frustrating. Having a royalty free, high quality, video codec is great. But it shouldn't prevent us having a significantly better still image format.
jonas-w 3y ago
What is AOM in this context?
- lonjil 3y ago
  Alliance of Open Media, the multi-company consortium that develops and promotes AV1 and AVIF.
pornel 3y ago
There are very few people working with image codecs, and you will not find a codec "virgin" among people responsible for these subsystems. One of the main JPEG XL contributors is a WebP contributor and a Google employee. If JPEG XL got shipped first you could make the opposite conspiracy from that!
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Well if that someone from JXL was trying to keep webp or avif out of a browser, I think that would be pretty justified!
  - pornel 3y ago
    No, not really. If JPEG XL had a time machine and made itself deployed on the Web before WebP, I'm pretty sure nobody would want WebP in. It'd be an objectively stupid idea to adopt WebP having JXL available, and I'm pretty sure even WebP authors would agree with that. The Web is not supposed to be a Katamari Damacy of codecs. It doesn't need multiple redundant or worse ways to do the same thing. There's a high cost of adopting a new format Web-wide, so it's rational to do it rarely and only when benefits outweigh the costs.
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      Thats a totally different scenario though. AVIF and JPEG XL both have gaps, contemporary adoption makes sense. Its like trying to argue "we dont need PNG, we have jpeg"

As said before, the commiter of the JXL removal is an AOM contributor, and the manager who approved it has given presentations on AV1. This is politics, not a technical discussion.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Half of tech is politics. Why else are all the measurements around here in feet instead of meters?

paulddraper 3y ago
Does "here" mean HN? YC is an US company, and its network is US-based.

orra 3y ago

That's frustrating. Having a royalty free, high quality, video codec is great. But it shouldn't prevent us having a significantly better still image format.

jonas-w 3y ago

What is AOM in this context?

lonjil 3y ago
Alliance of Open Media, the multi-company consortium that develops and promotes AV1 and AVIF.

pornel 3y ago

There are very few people working with image codecs, and you will not find a codec "virgin" among people responsible for these subsystems. One of the main JPEG XL contributors is a WebP contributor and a Google employee. If JPEG XL got shipped first you could make the opposite conspiracy from that!

brucethemoose2 3y ago
Well if that someone from JXL was trying to keep webp or avif out of a browser, I think that would be pretty justified!
- pornel 3y ago
  No, not really. If JPEG XL had a time machine and made itself deployed on the Web before WebP, I'm pretty sure nobody would want WebP in. It'd be an objectively stupid idea to adopt WebP having JXL available, and I'm pretty sure even WebP authors would agree with that. The Web is not supposed to be a Katamari Damacy of codecs. It doesn't need multiple redundant or worse ways to do the same thing. There's a high cost of adopting a new format Web-wide, so it's rational to do it rarely and only when benefits outweigh the costs.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Thats a totally different scenario though. AVIF and JPEG XL both have gaps, contemporary adoption makes sense. Its like trying to argue "we dont need PNG, we have jpeg"