| |
| ▲ | righthand 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | lonjil 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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). | |
| ▲ | breppp 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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) | |
| ▲ | refulgentis 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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!) | | |
| ▲ | lonjil 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > (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!) The fuck are you talking about? The jxl-rs library Firefox is waiting on is developed by mostly the exact same people who made libjxl which you say sucks so much. In any case, JXL obviously has mindshare due to the features it has as a format, not the merits of the reference decoder. | |
| ▲ | spider-mario 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > JPEG XL as a technical project was a real nightmare Why? > (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!) There is no waiting on Chrome involved in: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 | |
| ▲ | Implicated 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | lonjil 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > We barely even have movement to webp &avif If you look at CDNs, WebP and AVIF are very popular. > From what i understand avif gives better compression (except for lossless) and has better decoding speed than jxl anyways. AVIF is better at low to medium quality, and JXL is better at medium to high quality. JXL decoding speed is pretty much constant regardless of how you vary the quality parameter, but AVIF gets faster and faster to decode as you reduce the quality; it's only faster to decode than JXL for low quality images. And about half of all JPEG images on the web are high quality. The Chrome team really dislikes the concept of high quality images on the web for some reason though, that's why they only push formats that are optimized for low quality. WebP beats JPEG at low quality, but is literally incapable of very high quality[1] and is worse than JPEG at high quality. AVIF is really good at low quality but fails to be much of an improvement at high quality. For high resolution in combination with high quality, AVIF even manages to be worse than JPEG. [1] Except for the lossless mode which was developed by Jyrki at Google Zurich in response to Mozilla's demand that any new web image format should have good lossless support. | |
| ▲ | danielheath 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | jxl let’s you further compress existing JPEG files without additional artifacting, which is significant given how many jpeg files already exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
