4 ms·

When it was removed, no other browser supported JPEG XL, and no other browser had expressed an intent to do it. The last thing the web needs is more image forma

by jsnell 3y ago

When it was removed, no other browser supported JPEG XL, and no other browser had expressed an intent to do it. The last thing the web needs is more image formats with limited support. (Could they even have supported it consistently across platforms due to the iOS limitation on all browsers needing to be implemented on WebKit?) Apple implementing JPEG XL in Safari changes that. Now it's a format with a real chance of being supported across the whole ecosystem.

zatarc 3y ago
Not exactly. Firefox had JPEG XL support in its nightly versions until January(?) 2023.
- jsnell 3y ago
  I thought it was flag-protected in Firefox, not actually supported?
  - croes 3y ago
    Same was valid for Chrome, that's why it was ridiculous to claim lack of interest.
ksec 3y ago
>(Could they even have supported it consistently across platforms due to the iOS limitation on all browsers needing to be implemented on WebKit?) They same is true to WebP and AVIF?
- jsnell 3y ago
  Yes, it was true for WebP for like a decade. One of the many issues WebP had. Isn't it good to learn from the mistake of WebP, rather than repeat it? (AVIF was not supported by all browsers on day 1, obviously, but all the major browsers were governing members of the foundation developing it. So it was much more clear that the backing was there across the ecosystem.)
alwillis 3y ago
> Apple implementing JPEG XL in Safari changes that. Now it's a format with a real chance of being supported across the whole ecosystem. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I don’t believe the Chrome team didn’t know Apple was going to implement JPEG XL. There’s lots of communication between the Chrome and WebKit teams. It’s going to take more than just Apple shipping JPEG XL to perhaps change Google’s point of view; JPEG XL needs to be seen as a game changer that moves the needle.

by jsnell 3y ago

zatarc 3y ago

Not exactly. Firefox had JPEG XL support in its nightly versions until January(?) 2023.

jsnell 3y ago
I thought it was flag-protected in Firefox, not actually supported?
- croes 3y ago
  Same was valid for Chrome, that's why it was ridiculous to claim lack of interest.

ksec 3y ago

>(Could they even have supported it consistently across platforms due to the iOS limitation on all browsers needing to be implemented on WebKit?) They same is true to WebP and AVIF?

jsnell 3y ago
Yes, it was true for WebP for like a decade. One of the many issues WebP had. Isn't it good to learn from the mistake of WebP, rather than repeat it? (AVIF was not supported by all browsers on day 1, obviously, but all the major browsers were governing members of the foundation developing it. So it was much more clear that the backing was there across the ecosystem.)

alwillis 3y ago

> Apple implementing JPEG XL in Safari changes that. Now it's a format with a real chance of being supported across the whole ecosystem. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I don’t believe the Chrome team didn’t know Apple was going to implement JPEG XL. There’s lots of communication between the Chrome and WebKit teams. It’s going to take more than just Apple shipping JPEG XL to perhaps change Google’s point of view; JPEG XL needs to be seen as a game changer that moves the needle.