Didn't Google refuse adding JpegXL because they claimed there wasn't enough interest? I don't think they refused out of security concerns but maybe I'm misremembering that.

▲

pixelesque 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google argued that duplicating largely (I know JpegXL does support a bit more, but from most users' perspectives, they're largely right) what AVIF provided while being written in an unsafe language was not what they wanted in terms in increasing the attack surface.

▲

adzm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And it really was the right move at the time, imo. JXL however now has better implementations and better momentum in the wider ecosystem and not just yet another image format that gets put into chrome and de facto becomes a standard.

▲

_ache_ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can confirm. I found multiple problems in the "official" cjxl encoder back in 2023 contrary to the webp2 (cwp2) implementation where I could not find any bug or error.

If the encoder have obvious problems it is not a big deal, but it doesn't bode well for the decoder.

	▲	adzm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		CVE-2023-0645 in libjxl that year too, and several since

▲

klglrksbjkt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+the+old+man+does+is+alw...

	▲	actionfromafar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Hahaha perfect! Can't believe I never heard this story before.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

gcr an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Google refused to merge JpegXL as a strategy play to promote AVIF, which was in use by other teams (i think Photos?). Internally, chrome engineers were supportive of jxl but were overridden by leadership.

	▲	zaphar 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Do you have actual sources for this? Because the other people commenting about how the newer library removes most of the concerns explains this better than an unsubstantiated speculation about promoting AVIF.