| ▲ | rowbin 8 hours ago |
| That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it. The audacity... |
|
| ▲ | magicalist 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > That's rich coming from the company that tried to kill it This post is written by three of the authors of the JPEG XL spec, implementors of the reference and rust implementations of libjxl, and...longtime google employees. |
| |
|
| ▲ | rowbin 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Safari (2023) led among major browsers, while Firefox and Chrome currently maintain experimental support. |
| |
| ▲ | spartanatreyu 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, but they left out that Chrome removed their own support for JPEG XL saying no one in the industry was in favour of it despite everyone seeing it was the future screaming for it and building support for it into their own products. Chrome's blink was the only major browser engine not supporting it and that prevented it from becoming a web standard and they refused to acknowledge they were wrong. Chrome only backtracked once jpeg-xl was subsumed into the PDF standard because if Chrome did not support jpeg-xl, they would by extension also not be supporting pdf. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | jpeg xl is also now used for the latest version of the DNG raw image format, and the iphone now encodes raw images as jpeg xl in DNG. It's so clearly the future for photography that Google is holding back. Apple surprisingly has been the first with full support everywhere in their OSs and in Safari. | | |
| ▲ | Caspy7 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Safari is currently lacking animation and progressive decoding - still ahead of everyone else currently. Looks like by the end of the year we can expect Chrome and Firefox support. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Gigachad 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maintain in a sense. Google introduced it in Chrome as an experimental flag, then removed it with no real explanation, and only just brought it back. |
|
|
| ▲ | theturtle 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
