6 ms·

All those requests to revert the removal are funny: you want Chrome to re-add jxl behind a feature flag? Doesn't seem very useful. Also, all those Chrome offsh

All those requests to revert the removal are funny: you want Chrome to re-add jxl behind a feature flag? Doesn't seem very useful. Also, all those Chrome offshoots (Edge, Brave, Opera, etc) could easily add and enable it to distinguish themselves from Chrome ("faster page load", "less network use") and don't. Makes me wonder what's going on...

silisili 3y ago
Simply put these offshoots don't really seem to do browser code, and realize how expensive it would be for them to diverge at the core.
eviks 3y ago
No, obviously to re-add jxl without a flag
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  "jxl without a flag" can't be re-added because that was never a thing.
  - albert180 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - elygre 3y ago
    Or (re-add jxl) (without a flag).
  - eviks 3y ago
    It can, that's why you didn't say "re-add jxl", but had to mention the flag, 're-add' has no flag implication, that pedantic attempt to constraint is somehing you've made up, that's not what people want, just read those linked issues
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      It has a flag implication because jpeg-xl never came without being hidden behind a flag. Nothing was taken away from ordinary users at any point in time. And I suppose the Chrome folks have the telemetry to know how many people set that damn flag.
      - jdiff 3y ago
        >"But the plans were on display…” > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” > “That’s the display department.” > “With a flashlight.” > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > “So had the stairs.” > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”
        pgeorgi 3y ago
        I guess you're referring to the idea that the flag made the previous implementation practically non-existent for users. And I agree! But "implement something new!" is a very different demand from "you took that away from us, undo that!"
        jdiff 3y ago
        > No, obviously to re-add jxl without a flag Is asking for the old thing to be re-added, but without the flag that sabotaged it. It is the same as "you took that away from us, undo that!" Removing a flag does not turn it into a magical, mystical new thing that has to be built from scratch. This is silly. The entire point of having flags is to provide a testing platform for code that may one day have the flag removed.
      - eviks 3y ago
        I suppose I'll trust the reality of what actual users are expressly asking for vs. your imagination that something different is implied
lonjil 3y ago
> you want Chrome to re-add jxl behind a feature flag? Doesn't seem very useful. Chrome has a neat feature where some flags can be enabled by websites, so that websites can choose to cooperate in testing. They never did this for JXL, but if they re-added JXL behind a flag, they could do so but with such testing enabled. Then they could get real data from websites actually using it, without committing to supporting it if it isn't useful. > Also, all those Chrome offshoots (Edge, Brave, Opera, etc) could easily add and enable it to distinguish themselves from Chrome ("faster page load", "less network use") and don't. Makes me wonder what's going on... Edge doesn't use Chrome's own codec support. It uses Windows's media framework. JXL is being added to it next year.
- firsching 3y ago
  > Edge doesn't use Chrome's own codec support. It uses Windows's media framework. JXL is being added to it next year. Interesting!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

silisili 3y ago

Simply put these offshoots don't really seem to do browser code, and realize how expensive it would be for them to diverge at the core.

eviks 3y ago

No, obviously to re-add jxl without a flag

pgeorgi 3y ago
"jxl without a flag" can't be re-added because that was never a thing.
- albert180 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- elygre 3y ago
  Or (re-add jxl) (without a flag).
- eviks 3y ago
  It can, that's why you didn't say "re-add jxl", but had to mention the flag, 're-add' has no flag implication, that pedantic attempt to constraint is somehing you've made up, that's not what people want, just read those linked issues
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    It has a flag implication because jpeg-xl never came without being hidden behind a flag. Nothing was taken away from ordinary users at any point in time. And I suppose the Chrome folks have the telemetry to know how many people set that damn flag.
    - jdiff 3y ago
      >"But the plans were on display…” > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” > “That’s the display department.” > “With a flashlight.” > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > “So had the stairs.” > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”
      - pgeorgi 3y ago
        I guess you're referring to the idea that the flag made the previous implementation practically non-existent for users. And I agree! But "implement something new!" is a very different demand from "you took that away from us, undo that!"
        jdiff 3y ago
        > No, obviously to re-add jxl without a flag Is asking for the old thing to be re-added, but without the flag that sabotaged it. It is the same as "you took that away from us, undo that!" Removing a flag does not turn it into a magical, mystical new thing that has to be built from scratch. This is silly. The entire point of having flags is to provide a testing platform for code that may one day have the flag removed.
    - eviks 3y ago
      I suppose I'll trust the reality of what actual users are expressly asking for vs. your imagination that something different is implied

lonjil 3y ago

> you want Chrome to re-add jxl behind a feature flag? Doesn't seem very useful. Chrome has a neat feature where some flags can be enabled by websites, so that websites can choose to cooperate in testing. They never did this for JXL, but if they re-added JXL behind a flag, they could do so but with such testing enabled. Then they could get real data from websites actually using it, without committing to supporting it if it isn't useful. > Also, all those Chrome offshoots (Edge, Brave, Opera, etc) could easily add and enable it to distinguish themselves from Chrome ("faster page load", "less network use") and don't. Makes me wonder what's going on... Edge doesn't use Chrome's own codec support. It uses Windows's media framework. JXL is being added to it next year.

firsching 3y ago
> Edge doesn't use Chrome's own codec support. It uses Windows's media framework. JXL is being added to it next year. Interesting!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]