5 ms·
As a monopoly, Google should be barred from having standards positions and be legally required to build and support the web standards as determined by other par
by ocdtrekkie 11mo ago
As a monopoly, Google should be barred from having standards positions and be legally required to build and support the web standards as determined by other parties.
The insanity that the web platform is just "whatever Google's whims are" remains insane and mercurial. The web platform should not be as inconsistent as Google's own product strategies, wonder if XSLT will get unkilled in a few months.
- bigbuppo 11mo agoWell, they said they would unkill xslt if someone would rewrite and maintain it so that it's not the abandonware horrorshow it was. As for JPEG XL, of course they unkilled it. WEBP has been deprecated in favor of JPEG XL.
- ryanmcbride 11mo agohonestly hate webp so happy about this
- excusable 11mo agoI don't know much about webp. Just have checked the wiki, it looks nice. So for which reason you hate it?
- majora2007 11mo agoI don't know much about webp other than you get about 50% savings in compression vs png/jpeg, but it does have some hard limits on sizes of images. It doesn't do well with webtoon reading formats (long strip format). Otherwise, I love webp and use it for all my comics/manga.
- objectcode 11mo agoEven nowadays, webp seems to be good specifically for its lossless mode. It seems to create files that are substantially more efficient even when compared with advanced png encoders. For comics, png should probably be used over jpeg, so webp is likely indeed an upgrade, aside from compatibility. For photographs, jpeg has really been optimized without reducing compatibility, and also in another less compatible way (incompatible viewers can display it without erroring out, but the colors are wrong) and there's such an encoder in the JPEG XL repo.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- ryanmcbride 11mo agoIt was mostly about compatibility but looks like photoshop supports it now so I guess I can now officially say I don't really care one way or the other.
- lloydatkinson 11mo agoWebp deprecated? According to what?
- lern_too_spel 11mo agoVP8 is in all major browsers due to WebRTC, and webp uses little more code than the VP8 keyframe decoder, so it also has baseline support and is unlikely to be deprecated any time soon. https://caniuse.com/?search=vp8 https://caniuse.com/?search=vp8 Similarly, AVIF uses little more code than the AV1 keyframe decoder, so since every browser supports AV1, every browser also supports AVIF.
- bigbuppo 11mo agoIt's all arbitrary. WEBP is deprecated, just like GIF is deprecated.
- dpark 11mo agoI don’t think they actually said that about xslt at all. From what I saw they basically said usage is low enough that they do not care about it. Can you point to somewhere that Google or anyone else indicated that they would support xslt once there’s a secure, supported version?
- LegionMammal978 11mo ago> Well, they said they would unkill xslt if someone would rewrite and maintain it so that it's not the abandonware horrorshow it was. Who said this? I was never able to find any support among the browser devs for "keep XSLT with some more secure non-libxslt implementation".
- SquareWheel 11mo agoWhich other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's. They don't want to create a maintenance burden for features that offer little benefit over existing options.
- jfindper 11mo ago>Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's. Okay, and do they align on every other web standard too?
- johncolanduoni 11mo agoUsually it’s Mozilla not wanting to implement something Google wants to implement, not the other way around.
- jfindper 11mo agoIndeed, you're making my point. SquareWheel implied that Mozilla doesn't count as an "other party" because they are aligned with Google on this specific topic. My comment was pointing out that just because they are aligned on this doesn't mean they are aligned on everything, so Mozilla is an "other party". And, as you have reinforced, Google and Mozilla are not always in alignment.
- SquareWheel 11mo agoI made no such implication. Mozilla is certainly an other party, and their positions on standards hold water. They successfully argued for Web Assembly over Native Client, and have blocked other proposals such as HTML Import in the Web Components API. They are still a key member of the WHATWG. The fact that Mozilla aligns with Google on both of these deprecations suggests the reasons are valid. I personally see no reason for XSLT today. Outside of the novelty of theming RSS feeds, it sees very little use. And JPEG XL carries a large security surface area which neither company was comfortable including in its current shape. That may change based on adoption and availability of memory-safe decoders.
- nilamo 11mo agoBarred by who? There is no governing body who can do such a thing, currently. As it is, nothing stops any random person or organization from creating any new format.
- xg15 11mo agoAnd this will land in Chrome how?
- simonw 11mo agoHaving key browser implementers not involved in the standards processes is what lead us to the W3C wasting several years chasing XHTML 2.0.
- ocdtrekkie 11mo agoThere are other key browser implementers. Google should not have more than an advisory role in any standards organization.
- dpark 11mo agoThe other key browser implementers are also part of WHATWG. Who do you suppose should be in charge of web standards? I can’t imagine the train wreck of incompetence if standards were driven by bureaucrats instead of stakeholders.
- ocdtrekkie 11mo agoAnd those implementers should make decisions, Google should be bound by the FTC to supporting their recommendations. Honestly, what's really funny here is how absolutely horrified people are by the suggestion a single company which has a monopoly shouldn't also define the web platform. I really think anyone who has any sort of confusion about what I commented here to take a long, hard look at their worldview.
- dpark 11mo ago> And those implementers should make decisions, Google should be bound by the FTC to supporting their recommendations. Is your proposal essentially that Mozilla defines web standards Google is legally bound to implement them? > what's really funny here is how absolutely horrified people are by the suggestion Not horrified, but asking what the alternative is. I don’t think you’ve actually got a sensible proposal. Cooperation in the WHATWG is voluntary. Even if there were some workable proposal for how to drive web standards without Google having any decision making power, they could (and presumably would) decline to participate in any structure that mandated what they have to build in Chrome. Absent legal force, no one can make Google cede their investment in web standards.
- jeffbee 11mo agoNobody is stopping you from using jpegxl.
- xg15 11mo agoThen what is this article about?
- jeffbee 11mo agoIt's a meta-commentary about the death of critical thinking and the ease with which mindless mobs can be whipped. From the jump, the article commits a logical error, suggesting that Google killed jpegxl because it favors avif, which is "homegrown". jpegxl, of course, was also written by Google, so this sentence isn't even internally consistent.
- dpark 11mo agoThis is a vacuous statement. No one is stopping me from using JPEG XL in the same sense that no one is stopping me from using DIMG10K, a format I just invented. But if I attempt to use either of these in my website today, Chrome will not render them. In a very real sense Google is currently stopping web authors from using JPEG XL.
- jeffbee 11mo agoThe web was designed from the start to solve this problem and you can serve alternate formats to user agents which will select the one they support.
- m-schuetz 11mo agoNah, google paved the way forward with vital developments like WebGPU und import maps. I stopped using and supporting Firefox because they refused to improve the internet.