| ▲ | kps an hour ago |
| Not everything in the world is passive end-of-the-line presentation. JPEG-XL is the only one that tries to be a general-purpose image format. |
|
| ▲ | asadotzler an hour ago | parent [-] |
| If that's the case, let it be a feature of image editing packages that can output formats that are for the web. It's a web standard we're talking about here, not a general-purpose image format, so asking browsers to carry that big code load seems unreasonable when existing formats do most of what we need and want for the web. |
| |
| ▲ | crote an hour ago | parent [-] | | People generally expect browsers to display general-purpose image formats. It's why they support formats like classical JPEG, instead of just GIF and PNG. Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular. | | |
| ▲ | robertoandred 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular. That’s a function of the website, not the browser. | | |
| ▲ | jyoung8607 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > That’s a function of the website, not the browser. That's hand-waving away quite a lot. The task changes from serving a copy of a file on disk, as every other image format in common use, to needing a transcoding pipeline more akin to sites like YouTube. Technically possible, but lots of extra complexity in return for what gain? |
|
|
|
