3 ms·
Its not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization.
by brucethemoose2 3y ago
Its not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization.
- altairprime 3y ago> It's not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization. These facts support my point: the issue filed as linked above correctly cites one of those statements of support, without resorting to outrage, and has been successful at getting Chromium team's attention to the matter. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1451807#c17 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=145180... (Note that I wasn't able to identify any viewpoints or opinions in your reply, other than the facts discussed above. If that's an oversight, I'm happy to revisit.)
- worrycue 3y agoWhat’s outrageous is Google’s BS reasoning for dropping the format. They claim lack of interest when they (and Firefox) have been hiding JPEGXL support behind flags (and nightlies in the case of FireFox) yet WebP and AVIF is fully supported despite their similarly niche status. Chrome’s support for JPEGXL was also already more or less complete when they decided to drop it. Ironically though it has brought a lot of publicity to JPEGXL as “the format Google is trying to kill” in a Streisand effect sort of way. But with Chrome’s dominance that’s not enough to give it a fighting chance until Apple quietly announced support for it.
- altairprime 3y agoI agree. Google’s reasoning cannot be trusted. The decision they made was self-serving and their expressed reasoning was highly misleading.