Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#81

Post by chungy »

doublepg23 wrote: post #46
mschuster91 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has enough moat via the Chrome, Chrome-derivative browser and Youtube client marketshare to push through a new format virtually everywhere outside the Apple ecosystem.

Yet WebP support is still pretty dreadful.

Dreadful where? In this day and age, WebP is supported by every browser, I can browse them comfortably in my file manager and basically every image-related program can open and edit them (I'm running GNOME on Arch). Where is it lacking?

I'm not a fan of WebP, mind, but the idea that support for it is dreadful is strange to me.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#83

Post by izacus »

rocqua wrote: post #45
teraflop wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I can sympathize, I don't really understand the point of opening a new issue when all the same information has already been left in comments on the old closed issue. If the new issue gets closed, then it just reaffirms that the Chromium team doesn't care about this feature request. If the new issue somehow convinces the team to do something about it, then it shows that the team is utterly dysfunctional becau…

Further discussion on that closed issue is no longer possible right? So any new information that might cause a re-evaluation needs to be presented in a new issue. The new information here seems to be 'most people thought the previous decision was bad', rather than 'please I really want this'. Changing an old decision because most people think it was bad is not a sign of utter dysfunction.

"most people" of which group thought that?

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#84

Post by brucethemoose2 »

jsnell wrote: post #57
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this stopped Google's push for WebP or AVIF.

Right, WebP was almost certainly a mistake in hindsight. Whatever advantages it had weren't worth a decade of ecosystem fragmentation. Isn't learning from mistakes and not repeating them a good thing? I don't think AVIF is a good example of this though. All major browser makers were members of the consortium that created AVIF.

On the contrary, the webp push didn't really hurt anything... there were (IIRC) no major exploits related to it, and it sees some use. I wouldn't say it was a mistake.

But it was a tremendous amount of effort and promotion on Google's end for a relatively narrow format.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#85

Post by untitaker_ »

izacus wrote: post #82
untitaker_ wrote: post #15

this is a rando spamming the chromium issue tracker. what is newsworthy about this?

The fact that JXL is a new convenient crusade for people that hate on Chrome. You'll notice that noone is screaming at Mozilla for the same choice.

this has nothing to do with what i am talking about. the issue is legitimate but there are no news or interesting insights here.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#86

Post by asddubs »

jsnell wrote: post #12
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #2

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year... Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viabi…

actually, given that they now support JPEG XL and AVIF, edge is the most conservative. They sure did take their sweet time with webp, though.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#87

Post by brucethemoose2 »

altairprime wrote: post #51
jsnell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Apple adding support in Safari is far more important than Internet outrage! At this point adding new {image, audio, video, compression} codecs to browsers is probably a net negative, unless there's a good chance they get deployed across the entire browser ecosystem. Safari is generally the browser that's most conservative about implementing anything new, so their support makes a huge difference in the viabi…

[flagged]

Its not just gamergate style rage though. Large and small companies have made statements in support of JPEG XL standardization.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#88

Post by brucethemoose2 »

DannyBee wrote: post #49
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #2

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year... Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

Uh? This is just a random request on a bug tracker that someone is triaging the same way they triage all other things?

Yeah, it's barely a response at all.

But it still more of a response than Google has given in ages.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#89

Post by brucethemoose2 »

coldpie wrote: post #40
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #2

So, all it takes to consider a small community requested change in Chromium is a massive protest from thousands of users, small businesses, and Fortune 500 companies for almost a year... Or maybe they are just trying to keep feature parity with Safari.

Adding new image format support to a web browser is not a small change.

It was already implemented, and gated behind a flag.

Re: Request: Re-open JPEG XL issue

#90

Post by asddubs »

acdha wrote: post #79
stavros wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't even switched to WebP yet, and it's already obsolete? What hope is there for anything?

WebP was the classic Google “ship the prototype” move - they were hoping Chrome could muscle it through but it delivered only modest compression improvements (10-15% real world - the marketing papers promised 30% based on comparisons to unoptimized JPEGs) but it was missing features and had very primitive software support, making it harder to produce, deliver, or share (when Facebook switched, a common complaint was…

it's still a version of jpeg that supports transparency, and it's actually well supported (down to ios 14) to use without also having to deliver a fallback format now. it's not as good as it's successors, but if you are chosing one format and care about image size, it's the best choice.
Post reply on HN