this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
215 points (88.0% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
2904 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
215
Browser maker love-in snubs Google-shunned JPEG XL (www.theregister.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • Browser makers Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla have announced Interop 2024, a project to promote web browser interoperability.
  • JPEG XL, a potential replacement for JPEG and PNG image formats, was not included in Interop 2024.
  • The rejection of JPEG XL has been blamed on Google, with the Google Chrome team deciding not to support the image compression technology.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/nulY6

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 104 points 9 months ago (10 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

Two browser orgs.

Not arguing just pointing it out

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

There is a difference between indifference and actively working against something.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)