Technology

Am I having a stroke, or is this headline horrendously written?

What is this bullshit titlegore

I'm a photographer; AVIF and WebP do not serve my needs, JPEG-XL does.

I run my own website down to the hardware in my living room; I will not store 5 variations of any 1 picture just so I can serve the best available to clients when JPEG works everywhere and JPEG-XL offers me a lossless transition from JPG to JXL.

Chromium is literally the only reason JPEG-XL isn't being adopted right now, and it's so obvious that Google is pulling those strings.

JPEG-XL Ride or Die.

I still won't get over it and will keep fighting for JPEG XL. It would fix so many issues and greatly reduce the bandwidth need of the internet while not either having weird licensing or royalties and / or being a „what if we just took one frame from a video“ picture format. Also it can encode back to JPEG lossless for legacy uses. What more could one want?

Thanks to wasm, you don't have to bow to Google's whim and can choose to include jpeg xl support on your websites if you want: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

I expected Mozilla to implement this, I don't know how they expect to get marketshare by just following in Google's footsteps every step of the way.
Is Firefox it's own browser or just Chrome with a different engine? Even Apple support jxl, well the decoding anyway.

"Overall, we don't see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone," said Martin Thomson, distinguished engineer at Mozilla, last year. "Similarly, its feature advancements don't distinguish it above the collection of formats that are already included in the platform."

So is this a legit take on the technology? Sounds like an expert in the field is pretty convinced that this file format isn't really worth it's weight. What does JXL give the web that other file formats don't?

If Google says chromium won't support a feature it won't be used. The majority of browsers are Chromium under the hood.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The process began last year by gathering proposals for web technologies that group members will try to harmonize using automated tests.

The goal is to ensure browser implementations of these technologies match specifications in order to make the web platform better for developers.

Mozilla has not jumped on the JPEG XL bandwagon either: The Firefox maker said it's neutral with regard to the technology, citing cost and lack of significant differentiation from other image codecs.

"Overall, we don't see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone," said Martin Thomson, distinguished engineer at Mozilla, last year.

And it has since resisted entreaties to reconsider – despite Apple's endorsement last year and recent support from Samsung and apparent interest from Microsoft.

"Chrome is 'against' because of 'insufficient ecosystem interest' and because they want to promote improvements in existing codecs," said Sneyers, pointing to JPEG, WebP, and AVIF.

The original article contains 907 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!