4 ms·

Frankly Firefox is barely a hedge against Chrome. When it comes to things like JPEG-XL they are in lock step with Chrome. Safari ended up being JPEG-XL’s unlik

Frankly Firefox is barely a hedge against Chrome. When it comes to things like JPEG-XL they are in lock step with Chrome. Safari ended up being JPEG-XL’s unlikely champion. I kind of wished Apple would release Safari for other platforms again.

bawolff 3y ago
HN is weirdly obsessed with jpeg-xl. The logic for removing it totally made sense.
- febusravenga 3y ago
  true, I'm web fronted developer and I don't care ... more, I have no ida that there's some drama going on let alone normal users
- dvtkrlbs 3y ago
  I personally don't agree. They did a test with limited users and than complained the audience was limited.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  There's nothing weird about the obsession. It's the most technically impresive format so far.
  - kmlx 3y ago
    avif? webp?
    - rhn_mk1 3y ago
      https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-webp/ https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-webp/ > AVIF has an image resolution limit of 65536 x 65536 pixels. but from https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ > Max image size is limited to 4K (3840x2160) in AVIF, which is a deal breaker to me. You can tile images, but seams are visible at the edges, > WebP also has a hard limit to an image's frame size, with its maximum dimension being 16,383 x 16,383 > WebP supports a max bit depth of 8-bit > AVIF flexes a max bit depth of 10 Jpeg XL has progressive rendering support https://opensource.googleblog.com/2021/09/using-saliency-in-progressive-jpeg-xl-images.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2021/09/using-saliency-in-... AVIF spec doesn't (although it might gain it: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1221717 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=122171...) JPEG-XL manages to be more efficient than other current formats: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g... All of that while being a good all-around image format (rather than a specialized one like webp and avif): same format for web, photos, raw photos, etc. To me, this makes it the most noteworthy image format now.
      - kmlx 3y ago
        interesting, thank you for the links.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    There's more that goes into a product decision than technical superiority.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Like?
skavi 3y ago
Web for Gnome/Pantheon is WebKit based.
bpye 3y ago
I wonder if it really needs to be Safari or if there would be any demand for a WebKit+JavaScriptCore browser on other platforms?
chungy 3y ago
Mozilla's made no such position as removing the experimental JPEG XL code.
intellix 3y ago
I wish Safari would stop breaking the web. Every new iOS version requires me to change how to handle scrolling and fight new position bugs for days/weeks
- tatersolid 3y ago
  You shouldn’t be “handling scrolling” at all in your code, that’s the browser’s job. Sites which attempt to interfere with native scrolling have terrible user experience and often break accessibility tools like screen readers or magnifiers.
realusername 3y ago
> I kind of wished Apple would release Safari for other platforms again. It's barely maintained even on their own platforms. If they could stabilize and not break localStorage, indexdb or forms every other week, that would already be a great start before thinking of other platforms.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  > It's barely maintained even on their own platforms. That is really an absurd claim. Check the webkit blog.
  - realusername 3y ago
    I have spent enough time fixing nonsense bugs in Safari to say that. Sure the devlog might look full but there's a very wide gap between Chrome or Firefox. Maybe it's not a priority compared to their revenue stream, I don't know.
Kwpolska 3y ago
JPEG-XL is a feature the web can live without. But unlike Chrome, Firefox won't kill ad blockers or introduce DRM.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
  What? Firefox absolutely gave us DRM, encrypted media extensions, solely because they thought people would stop using it without support. They'll follow chrome on extensions, again, and the new DRM, attestation.
robin_reala 3y ago
We can see exactly Mozilla’s position on JPEG-XL: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl JPEG-XL includes features and performance that might differentiate it from other formats, but the benefits it provides are not significant enough on their own to justify the cost of adding another raster image format to the Web.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Yet it supports AVIF, a a directly competing format ... There is nothing neutral about supporting one format and not supporting another.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    If the functionality is effectively the same then supporting one of two formats reduces the attack surface for security exploits for little loss.
    - worrycue 3y ago
      > If the functionality is effectively the same If it were people wouldn't be pushing for JPEG-XL. I'm not going to repeat the advantages of JEPG-XL - plenty of posts on that already. For some bizarre reason, Mozilla chooses to back the other format - release Firefox can display AVIF right now - while leaving JPEG-XL stuck behind a flag in a Nightly.

bawolff 3y ago

HN is weirdly obsessed with jpeg-xl. The logic for removing it totally made sense.

febusravenga 3y ago
true, I'm web fronted developer and I don't care ... more, I have no ida that there's some drama going on let alone normal users
dvtkrlbs 3y ago
I personally don't agree. They did a test with limited users and than complained the audience was limited.
rhn_mk1 3y ago
There's nothing weird about the obsession. It's the most technically impresive format so far.
- kmlx 3y ago
  avif? webp?
  - rhn_mk1 3y ago
    https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-webp/ https://avif.io/blog/comparisons/avif-vs-webp/ > AVIF has an image resolution limit of 65536 x 65536 pixels. but from https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ > Max image size is limited to 4K (3840x2160) in AVIF, which is a deal breaker to me. You can tile images, but seams are visible at the edges, > WebP also has a hard limit to an image's frame size, with its maximum dimension being 16,383 x 16,383 > WebP supports a max bit depth of 8-bit > AVIF flexes a max bit depth of 10 Jpeg XL has progressive rendering support https://opensource.googleblog.com/2021/09/using-saliency-in-progressive-jpeg-xl-images.html https://opensource.googleblog.com/2021/09/using-saliency-in-... AVIF spec doesn't (although it might gain it: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1221717 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=122171...) JPEG-XL manages to be more efficient than other current formats: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-going https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g... All of that while being a good all-around image format (rather than a specialized one like webp and avif): same format for web, photos, raw photos, etc. To me, this makes it the most noteworthy image format now.
    - kmlx 3y ago
      interesting, thank you for the links.
- bawolff 3y ago
  There's more that goes into a product decision than technical superiority.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Like?

skavi 3y ago

Web for Gnome/Pantheon is WebKit based.

bpye 3y ago

I wonder if it really needs to be Safari or if there would be any demand for a WebKit+JavaScriptCore browser on other platforms?

chungy 3y ago

Mozilla's made no such position as removing the experimental JPEG XL code.

intellix 3y ago

I wish Safari would stop breaking the web. Every new iOS version requires me to change how to handle scrolling and fight new position bugs for days/weeks

tatersolid 3y ago
You shouldn’t be “handling scrolling” at all in your code, that’s the browser’s job. Sites which attempt to interfere with native scrolling have terrible user experience and often break accessibility tools like screen readers or magnifiers.

realusername 3y ago

> I kind of wished Apple would release Safari for other platforms again. It's barely maintained even on their own platforms. If they could stabilize and not break localStorage, indexdb or forms every other week, that would already be a great start before thinking of other platforms.

baggy_trough 3y ago
> It's barely maintained even on their own platforms. That is really an absurd claim. Check the webkit blog.
- realusername 3y ago
  I have spent enough time fixing nonsense bugs in Safari to say that. Sure the devlog might look full but there's a very wide gap between Chrome or Firefox. Maybe it's not a priority compared to their revenue stream, I don't know.

Kwpolska 3y ago

JPEG-XL is a feature the web can live without. But unlike Chrome, Firefox won't kill ad blockers or introduce DRM.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
What? Firefox absolutely gave us DRM, encrypted media extensions, solely because they thought people would stop using it without support. They'll follow chrome on extensions, again, and the new DRM, attestation.

robin_reala 3y ago

We can see exactly Mozilla’s position on JPEG-XL: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl JPEG-XL includes features and performance that might differentiate it from other formats, but the benefits it provides are not significant enough on their own to justify the cost of adding another raster image format to the Web.

worrycue 3y ago
Yet it supports AVIF, a a directly competing format ... There is nothing neutral about supporting one format and not supporting another.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  If the functionality is effectively the same then supporting one of two formats reduces the attack surface for security exploits for little loss.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    > If the functionality is effectively the same If it were people wouldn't be pushing for JPEG-XL. I'm not going to repeat the advantages of JEPG-XL - plenty of posts on that already. For some bizarre reason, Mozilla chooses to back the other format - release Firefox can display AVIF right now - while leaving JPEG-XL stuck behind a flag in a Nightly.