4 ms·
What percentage of the web is that 0.1% ? 0.01% ? I think its correct to say a use case that is very niche on the web isn't super important to the web. Especia
by bawolff 19d ago
What percentage of the web is that 0.1% ? 0.01% ?
I think its correct to say a use case that is very niche on the web isn't super important to the web. Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats. After all, the value proposition of jxl is to save some bytes. It would be different if the point was introducing images as a whole.
- out_of_protocol 19d agocount .png-s in the web. There's a lot. And .jxl's lossless is much better than png's. Basically any image with sharp lines (screenshots, image of a button etc) or gradients should be lossless.
- jaffathecake 19d agoThis is outdated thinking. AVIF is really good at sharp lines & gradients. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/#:~:text=Another%20example%20is%20a%20screenshot%20of%20the%20Interop%202025%20scores https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/#:~...
- F3nd0 19d agoNot at lossless, though.
- SmasherEpilepti 19d agoIf you're counting by absolute numbers, 90% of the web is probably YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, TikTok and the other major silos. I don't think those should be able to define all the web technologies for everybody else. > Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats. Sure, but I'm not defending JXL here in particular, just arguing against the point that lossless images are unimportant on the web.