38 ms·
great writeup. i wish it had started with the intro of "wtf is JPEG XL" for those of us not as close to it. but the ending somewhat approximates it. i'm still l
by swyx 3y ago
great writeup. i wish it had started with the intro of "wtf is JPEG XL" for those of us not as close to it. but the ending somewhat approximates it. i'm still left not knowing when to use webp, avif, or jxl, and mostly know that they are difficult files to work with because most websites' image file uploaders etc dont support them anyway, so i end up having to open up the file and take a screenshot of them to convert them to jpeg for upload.
so do we think Chrome will reverse their decision to drop support?
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoThe only way to strip Chrome of their monopoly power is to remove their decisionmaking mattering: Switch all your stuff on your websites to JXL, let Chrome provide a bad experience, and then it's up to them if they fix it.
- jraph 3y agoSadly, unless many webmasters do it, it'll likely feel like "your site is broken" instead of "Chrome is broken" to users. Maybe with a banner like "You are using Chrome. You might have a degraded experience due to the lack of support for better image formats. Consider Firefox".
- pgeorgi 3y agoProvide alternative formats, making the browser autoselect. Or provide a JXL polyfill. In either case: Have Chrome telemetry report home that "user could have 20% faster page load with JXL support".
- wolpoli 3y agoJXL polyfill is definitely the way to go to force Chrome's hand.
- alwillis 3y agoIt’s not going to force Google’s hand. Using a polyfill will slow page loads and adds additional fragility. Nothing changes for Chrome users, especially sites using the <picture> element where the first supported image format is used.
- worrycue 3y agoIt will slow page loads for Chrome and browsers not supporting it but it will be blazing fast on Safari. You keep the file size savings and high image quality. I’m sure YouTubers and tech sites will love to do Safari vs Chrome (and Co.) content to spread the message that Chrome is inferior.
- Zen1th 3y agoFeels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. IMO, the sad truth is that what will happen is that JXL simply won't be used because it's not worth it to lose customers in exchange for a few kilobytes saved. Google has won, it has a monopoly on search, advertisement and the browser and decides de facto of all standards.
- yboris 3y agoChrome did not settle things with its decision to not use JXL at this time. (WASM) Polyfill and we're done.
- jraph 3y ago> Feels a little like a déjà vu from an older browser by a big company that had a monopoly.. Any resemblance with previous events would be totally unintentional, of course :-)
- brucethemoose2 3y ago> so do we think Chrome will reverse their decision to drop support? Nope. Microsoft could probably push Google over the Edge. They have a lot of influence over Chrome with Edge/Windows defaults, business apps and such.
- youngtaff 3y agoIf they don’t they’re going to look pretty stupid… Chrome Leadership stated “we’ll only support JXL if Safari do” to at least one large tech company who were unhappy with JXL being dropped by Chrome (and no I can’t tell you how I know this)
- asddubs 3y agoMicrosoft also weirdly go out of their way to strip AVIF support from Edge
- brucethemoose2 3y agoI noticed that. It feels disturbingly tribal.
- pgeorgi 3y ago> so do we think Chrome will reverse their decision to drop support? The argument was that there's no industry support (apparently this means: beyond words in an issue tracker), let's see how acceptance is with Safari supporting it. An uptick in JXL use sounds like a good-enough reason to re-add JXL support, this time not behind an experimental flag. Maybe Firefox even decides to provide it without a flag and in their regular user build.
- mgaunard 3y agoWe all know what the real argument is: NIH.
- bbatsell 3y agoOne of the three main authors of JXL works for Google. But in the Google Research Zurich office, so he might as well not exist to the Chrome team, I guess.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- masklinn 3y agoAh yes, NIH from a contributor to the spec, makes complete sense.
- mrguyorama 3y ago[flagged]