5 ms·

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/18433 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/1... vote for this feature to be na

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/18433 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/1... vote for this feature to be natively supported in browsers

CharlesW 1y ago
It's nice to see Safari lead the pack: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
Vinnl 1y ago
It's already under consideration but needs some work first: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
- righthand 1y ago
  Strange that Mozilla is going to rely on an internal team at Google to build a decoder for them in Rust, when Google is the one trying to kill JPEGXL.
  - Mindless2112 1y ago
    It's two different teams inside Google. Some part of the Chrome team is trying to quash JPEG XL.
    - righthand 1y ago
      Sure, but if it becomes political I expect the Chrome team to fully quash the JPEG XL team to hurt Firefox and JPEG XL in one go.
      - breppp 1y ago
        It's more likely related to security, image formats are a huge attack surface for browsers and they are hard to remove once added. JPEG XL was written in C++ in a completely different part of Google without any of the safe vanity wuffs style code, and the Chrome team probably had its share of trouble with half baked compression formats (webp)
      - lonjil 1y ago
        Other than Jon at Cloudinary, everyone involved with JXL development, from creation of the standard to the libjxl library, works at Google Research in Zurich. The Chrome team in California has zero authority over them. They've also made a lot of stuff that's in Chrome, like Lossless WebP, Brotli, WOFF, the Highway SIMD library (actually created for libjxl and later spun off).
      - refulgentis 1y ago
        I'd argue the thread up through the comment you are replying to is fact-free gossiping - I'm wondering if it was an invitation to repeat the fact-free gossip, the comment doesn't read that way. Reads to me as more exasperated, so exasperated they're willing to speak publicly and establish facts. My $0.02, since the gap here on perception of the situation fascinates me: JPEG XL as a technical project was a real nightmare, I am not surprised at all to find Mozilla is waiting for a real decoder. If you get _any_ FAANG engineer involved in this mess a beer || truth serum, they'll have 0 idea why this has so much mindshare, modulo it sounds like something familiar (JPEG) and people invented nonsense like "Chrome want[s] to kill it" while it has the attention of an absurd amount of engineers to get it into shipping shape. (surprisingly, Firefox is not attributed this - they also do not support it yet, and they are not doing anything _other_ than awaiting Chrome's work for it!)
        Implicated 1y ago
        > they'll have 0 idea why this has so much mindshare Considering the amount of storage all of these companies are likely allocating to storing jpegs + the bandwidth of it all - maybe the instant file size wins?
        bawolff 1y ago
        Hard disk and bandwidth of jpegs are almost certainly negligible in the era of streaming video. The biggest selling point is probably client side latency from downloading the file. We barely even have movement to webp &avif, if this was a critical issue i would expect a lot more movement on that front since it already exists. From what i understand avif gives better compression (except for lossless) and has better decoding speed than jxl anyways.
        danielheath 1y ago
        jxl let’s you further compress existing JPEG files without additional artifacting, which is significant given how many jpeg files already exist.
        1y ago
  - spider-mario 1y ago
    Those writing the new Rust decoder are largely people who worked on the standard and on the original C++ implementation, + contributions from the author of jxl-oxide (who is not at Google).
  - bawolff 1y ago
    Sheesh. Google isn't trying to kill jxl, they just think its a bad fit for their product. There is a huge difference between deciding not to do something because the benefit vs complexity trade off doesn't make sense, and actively trying to kill something. FWIW i agree with google, avif is a much better format for the web. Pathology imaging is a bit of a different use case, where jpeg-xl is a better fit than avif would be.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
jiggawatts 1y ago
And then to actually support the HDR images that can be encoded with JPEG XL, they'd have to implement HDR in the browser graphics pipeline. Any decade now, any decade...
bawolff 1y ago
Voting for tickets does nothing when there are real reasons not to implement.

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/18433 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/support-jpeg-xl/idi-p/1... vote for this feature to be natively supported in browsers

CharlesW 1y ago

It's nice to see Safari lead the pack: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl https://caniuse.com/jpegxl

Vinnl 1y ago

It's already under consideration but needs some work first: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064

righthand 1y ago
Strange that Mozilla is going to rely on an internal team at Google to build a decoder for them in Rust, when Google is the one trying to kill JPEGXL.
- Mindless2112 1y ago
  It's two different teams inside Google. Some part of the Chrome team is trying to quash JPEG XL.
  - righthand 1y ago
    Sure, but if it becomes political I expect the Chrome team to fully quash the JPEG XL team to hurt Firefox and JPEG XL in one go.
    - breppp 1y ago
      It's more likely related to security, image formats are a huge attack surface for browsers and they are hard to remove once added. JPEG XL was written in C++ in a completely different part of Google without any of the safe vanity wuffs style code, and the Chrome team probably had its share of trouble with half baked compression formats (webp)
    - lonjil 1y ago
      Other than Jon at Cloudinary, everyone involved with JXL development, from creation of the standard to the libjxl library, works at Google Research in Zurich. The Chrome team in California has zero authority over them. They've also made a lot of stuff that's in Chrome, like Lossless WebP, Brotli, WOFF, the Highway SIMD library (actually created for libjxl and later spun off).
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      I'd argue the thread up through the comment you are replying to is fact-free gossiping - I'm wondering if it was an invitation to repeat the fact-free gossip, the comment doesn't read that way. Reads to me as more exasperated, so exasperated they're willing to speak publicly and establish facts. My $0.02, since the gap here on perception of the situation fascinates me: JPEG XL as a technical project was a real nightmare, I am not surprised at all to find Mozilla is waiting for a real decoder. If you get _any_ FAANG engineer involved in this mess a beer || truth serum, they'll have 0 idea why this has so much mindshare, modulo it sounds like something familiar (JPEG) and people invented nonsense like "Chrome want[s] to kill it" while it has the attention of an absurd amount of engineers to get it into shipping shape. (surprisingly, Firefox is not attributed this - they also do not support it yet, and they are not doing anything _other_ than awaiting Chrome's work for it!)
      - Implicated 1y ago
        > they'll have 0 idea why this has so much mindshare Considering the amount of storage all of these companies are likely allocating to storing jpegs + the bandwidth of it all - maybe the instant file size wins?
        bawolff 1y ago
        Hard disk and bandwidth of jpegs are almost certainly negligible in the era of streaming video. The biggest selling point is probably client side latency from downloading the file. We barely even have movement to webp &avif, if this was a critical issue i would expect a lot more movement on that front since it already exists. From what i understand avif gives better compression (except for lossless) and has better decoding speed than jxl anyways.
        danielheath 1y ago
        jxl let’s you further compress existing JPEG files without additional artifacting, which is significant given how many jpeg files already exist.
        1y ago
- spider-mario 1y ago
  Those writing the new Rust decoder are largely people who worked on the standard and on the original C++ implementation, + contributions from the author of jxl-oxide (who is not at Google).
- bawolff 1y ago
  Sheesh. Google isn't trying to kill jxl, they just think its a bad fit for their product. There is a huge difference between deciding not to do something because the benefit vs complexity trade off doesn't make sense, and actively trying to kill something. FWIW i agree with google, avif is a much better format for the web. Pathology imaging is a bit of a different use case, where jpeg-xl is a better fit than avif would be.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

jiggawatts 1y ago

And then to actually support the HDR images that can be encoded with JPEG XL, they'd have to implement HDR in the browser graphics pipeline. Any decade now, any decade...

bawolff 1y ago

Voting for tickets does nothing when there are real reasons not to implement.