3 ms·
We can see exactly Mozilla’s position on JPEG-XL: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl J
by 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 agoYet it supports AVIF, a a directly competing format ... There is nothing neutral about supporting one format and not supporting another.
- robin_reala 3y agoIf 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.