3 ms·
Yeah, uploading six versions of every image doesn't intersect with my definition of not caring. What I meant was that you only need to care about what image fo
by onion2k 3y ago
Yeah, uploading six versions of every image doesn't intersect with my definition of not caring.
What I meant was that you only need to care about what image formats you want to support. You don't need to care about what image formats browser vendors support.
- jedberg 3y agoExcept that you're totally wrong. If you care about JXL, and only want to support JXL, and you put a JXL in your picture tag, then the browser still won't render it, even if you use a picture tag.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CharlesW 3y ago> If you care about JXL, and only want to support JXL, and you put a JXL in your picture tag, then the browser still won't render it, even if you use a picture tag. Is this true if you provide a polyfill? Have you tried it and it failed? (Serious question.) https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js
- cornstalks 3y agoHaving to provide a polyfill is the opposite of "stop caring about what petty squabbles browser vendors have around which image formats they choose to support."
- mynameisvlad 3y agoSo what if you only care about JPEG-XL?
- onion2k 3y ago[flagged]
- mynameisvlad 3y agoGotta love being called a dick for having a hypothetical opinion on image formats. You are suggesting that `<picture>` alone would solve this issue. It very clearly does not; you're still limited by what browsers support the format you use in your pictures. If you only release it in one format because you don't want to deal with compression/format changes/whatever, then you still have the same exact problem. If months from now, Chrome is the only browser that doesn't support it, then it's just as bad of a solution as now, and I'd no longer be called a dick by a random stranger on the internet. What then?
- onion2k 3y ago[flagged]