4 ms·

Which 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

Which 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 10mo 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 10mo ago
  Usually it’s Mozilla not wanting to implement something Google wants to implement, not the other way around.
  - jfindper 10mo ago
    Indeed, 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 10mo ago
      I 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.
      - jfindper 10mo ago
        >>"[...] support the web standards as determined by other parties." >"Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's" If this isn't an implication that Mozilla isn't an other party, than I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "Which other parties?". Whatever you meant to say, it read as an implication that Mozilla just does what Google does so Mozilla isn't really an "other party".
        SquareWheel 10mo ago
        It means exactly what it says: "What other parties do you mean?". Key players are already in lockstep on this decision, so insisting that Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL. You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.
        jfindper 10mo ago
        >Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL. The comment you replied to was speaking generally, not specifically to XSLT or JPEG XL. They obviously didn't say "Google should be barred from having standards positions" just in context of XSLT/JPEG XL, but they're totally cool with the Google monopoly with every other standard. >You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly. Nah, I'm really not. But I'm just farming downvotes, apparently, so nevermind. You win! yay (It's fun that people are coming to a conversation over 24 hours old, however many levels deep, to downvote!)
_jzlw 10mo ago
Didn't Mozilla basically say they would support it if Google does? Mozilla doesn't have the resources to maintain a feature that no one can actually use; they're barely managing to keep up with the latest standards as it is.
- philipallstar 10mo ago
  They have many millions to spend on engineers. They should do that.
  - DrewADesign 10mo ago
    Just come up with some way to make it a huge win for Pocket integration or the like.
- jamesnorden 10mo ago
  Yeah, they need those resources to pay the CEO!
- josefx 10mo ago
  > maintain a feature that no one can actually use; If only there was a way to detect which features a browser supports. Something maybe in the html, the css, javascript or the user agent. If only there was a way to do that, we would not be stuck in a world pretending that everything runs on IE6. /s
Fileformat 10mo ago
Which is why Firefox is steadily losing market share. If Mozilla wanted Firefox to succeed, they would stop playing "copy Chrome" and support all sorts of things that the community wants, like JpegXL, XSLT, RSS/Atom, Gemini (protocol, not AI), ActivityPub, etc. Not to mention a built-in ad-blocker...
- dralley 10mo ago
  With all due respect, this is a completely HN-brained take. No significant number of users chooses their browser based on support for image codecs. Especially not when no relevant website will ever use them until Safari and Chrome support them. And websites which already do not bother supporting Firefox very much will bother even less if said browser by-default refuses to allow them to make revenue. They may in fact go even further and put more effort into trying to block said users unless they use a different browser. Despite whatever HN thinks, Firefox lost marketshare on the basis of: A) heavy marketing campaigns by Google including backdoor auto-installations via. crapware installers like free antivirus, Java and Adobe, and targeted popups on the largest websites on the planet (which are primarily google properties). The Chrome marketing budget alone nearly surpasses Mozilla's entire budget and that's not even accounting for the value of the aforementioned self-advertising. B) being a slower, heavier browser at the time, largely because the extension model that HN loved so much and fought the removal of was an architectural anchor, and beyond that, XUL/XPCOM extensions were frequently the cause of the most egregious examples of bad performance, bloat and brokenness in the first place. C) being "what their cellphone uses" and Google being otherwise synonymous with the internet, like IE was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their competitors (Apple, Microsoft, Google) all own their own OS platforms and can squeeze alternative browsers out by merely being good enough or integrated enough not to switch for the average person.
  - Fileformat 10mo ago
    I don't disagree with you, but given (A) how will Firefox ever compete? One possible way is doing things that Google and Chrome don't (can't). Catering to niche audiences (and winning those niches) gives people a reason to use it. Maybe one of the niches takes off. Catering to advanced users not necessarily a bad way to compete. Being a feature-for-feature copy of Chrome is not a winning strategy (IMHO).

jfindper 10mo 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 10mo ago
Usually it’s Mozilla not wanting to implement something Google wants to implement, not the other way around.
- jfindper 10mo ago
  Indeed, 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 10mo ago
    I 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.
    - jfindper 10mo ago
      >>"[...] support the web standards as determined by other parties." >"Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's" If this isn't an implication that Mozilla isn't an other party, than I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "Which other parties?". Whatever you meant to say, it read as an implication that Mozilla just does what Google does so Mozilla isn't really an "other party".
      - SquareWheel 10mo ago
        It means exactly what it says: "What other parties do you mean?". Key players are already in lockstep on this decision, so insisting that Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL. You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.
        jfindper 10mo ago
        >Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL. The comment you replied to was speaking generally, not specifically to XSLT or JPEG XL. They obviously didn't say "Google should be barred from having standards positions" just in context of XSLT/JPEG XL, but they're totally cool with the Google monopoly with every other standard. >You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly. Nah, I'm really not. But I'm just farming downvotes, apparently, so nevermind. You win! yay (It's fun that people are coming to a conversation over 24 hours old, however many levels deep, to downvote!)

_jzlw 10mo ago

Didn't Mozilla basically say they would support it if Google does? Mozilla doesn't have the resources to maintain a feature that no one can actually use; they're barely managing to keep up with the latest standards as it is.

philipallstar 10mo ago
They have many millions to spend on engineers. They should do that.
- DrewADesign 10mo ago
  Just come up with some way to make it a huge win for Pocket integration or the like.
jamesnorden 10mo ago
Yeah, they need those resources to pay the CEO!
josefx 10mo ago
> maintain a feature that no one can actually use; If only there was a way to detect which features a browser supports. Something maybe in the html, the css, javascript or the user agent. If only there was a way to do that, we would not be stuck in a world pretending that everything runs on IE6. /s

Fileformat 10mo ago

Which is why Firefox is steadily losing market share. If Mozilla wanted Firefox to succeed, they would stop playing "copy Chrome" and support all sorts of things that the community wants, like JpegXL, XSLT, RSS/Atom, Gemini (protocol, not AI), ActivityPub, etc. Not to mention a built-in ad-blocker...

dralley 10mo ago
With all due respect, this is a completely HN-brained take. No significant number of users chooses their browser based on support for image codecs. Especially not when no relevant website will ever use them until Safari and Chrome support them. And websites which already do not bother supporting Firefox very much will bother even less if said browser by-default refuses to allow them to make revenue. They may in fact go even further and put more effort into trying to block said users unless they use a different browser. Despite whatever HN thinks, Firefox lost marketshare on the basis of: A) heavy marketing campaigns by Google including backdoor auto-installations via. crapware installers like free antivirus, Java and Adobe, and targeted popups on the largest websites on the planet (which are primarily google properties). The Chrome marketing budget alone nearly surpasses Mozilla's entire budget and that's not even accounting for the value of the aforementioned self-advertising. B) being a slower, heavier browser at the time, largely because the extension model that HN loved so much and fought the removal of was an architectural anchor, and beyond that, XUL/XPCOM extensions were frequently the cause of the most egregious examples of bad performance, bloat and brokenness in the first place. C) being "what their cellphone uses" and Google being otherwise synonymous with the internet, like IE was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their competitors (Apple, Microsoft, Google) all own their own OS platforms and can squeeze alternative browsers out by merely being good enough or integrated enough not to switch for the average person.
- Fileformat 10mo ago
  I don't disagree with you, but given (A) how will Firefox ever compete? One possible way is doing things that Google and Chrome don't (can't). Catering to niche audiences (and winning those niches) gives people a reason to use it. Maybe one of the niches takes off. Catering to advanced users not necessarily a bad way to compete. Being a feature-for-feature copy of Chrome is not a winning strategy (IMHO).