Starting to feel like this whole "standards" thing is a giant farce
Which standard requires support of JXL?
The PDF association apparently recently added jpeg xl to the pdf spec and indicated that it's the preferred solution for HDR content.
Google unkills JPEG XL?
71–80 of 283 posts
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#72Starting to feel like this whole "standards" thing is a giant farce
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#73Starting to feel like this whole "standards" thing is a giant farce
Well, there are de jure standards (what the w3c says a browser should do) and de facto standards (what Chrome does).
As it ever was. Standards are a three-edged sword: spec, intent of spec, and implementations of spec.
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#74Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other key browser implementers are also part of WHATWG. Who do you suppose should be in charge of web standards? I can’t imagine the train wreck of incompetence if standards were driven by bureaucrats instead of stakeholders.
And those implementers should make decisions, Google should be bound by the FTC to supporting their recommendations. Honestly, what's really funny here is how absolutely horrified people are by the suggestion a single company which has a monopoly shouldn't also define the web platform. I really think anyone who has any sort of confusion about what I commented here to take a long, hard look at their worldview.
> And those implementers should make decisions, Google should be bound by the FTC to supporting their recommendations.
Is your proposal essentially that Mozilla defines web standards Google is legally bound to implement them?
> what's really funny here is how absolutely horrified people are by the suggestion
Not horrified, but asking what the alternative is. I don’t think you’ve actually got a sensible proposal.
Cooperation in the WHATWG is voluntary. Even if there were some workable proposal for how to drive web standards without Google having any decision making power, they could (and presumably would) decline to participate in any structure that mandated what they have to build in Chrome. Absent legal force, no one can make Google cede their investment in web standards.
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#76Isn't this due to the 100M+ line C++ multi-threaded dependency being a potential nightmare when you are dealing with images in browsers/emails/etc. as an attack surface? I think both Mozilla and Google are OK with this - if it is written in Rust in order to avoid that situation. I know the linked post mentions this but isn't that the crux of the whole thing? The standard itself is clearly an improvement over what we'…
You mean 100K+? A large chunk of which they say is testing code?
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's. They don't want to create a maintenance burden for features that offer little benefit over existing options.
Didn't Mozilla basically say they would support it if Google does? Mozilla doesn't have the resources to maintain a feature that no one can actually use; they're barely managing to keep up with the latest standards as it is.
Yeah, they need those resources to pay the CEO!
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#78Isn't this due to the 100M+ line C++ multi-threaded dependency being a potential nightmare when you are dealing with images in browsers/emails/etc. as an attack surface? I think both Mozilla and Google are OK with this - if it is written in Rust in order to avoid that situation. I know the linked post mentions this but isn't that the crux of the whole thing? The standard itself is clearly an improvement over what we'…
100M+ is a bit more than i would expect for an image format. have i not been paying attention
It's a container format that does about a bajillion things - lossy, lossless, multiple modes optimized for different image types (photography vs digital design), modern encode/decode algorithms, perceptual color space, adaptive quantization, efficient ultra-high-resolution decoding and display, partial and complete animation, tile handling, everything JPEG does, and a bunch more.
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other key browser implementers are also part of WHATWG. Who do you suppose should be in charge of web standards? I can’t imagine the train wreck of incompetence if standards were driven by bureaucrats instead of stakeholders.
How about the users and web authors?
Ask users what they want and they say "faster horses," not cars.
Users are a key information source but they don't know how to build a web engine, they don't know networks, and they don't know security; and therefore can't dictate the feature set.
Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's. They don't want to create a maintenance burden for features that offer little benefit over existing options.
Which is why Firefox is steadily losing market share. If Mozilla wanted Firefox to succeed, they would stop playing "copy Chrome" and support all sorts of things that the community wants, like JpegXL, XSLT, RSS/Atom, Gemini (protocol, not AI), ActivityPub, etc. Not to mention a built-in ad-blocker...
> all sorts of things that the community wants, like JpegXL, XSLT, RSS/Atom, Gemini (protocol, not AI), ActivityPub, etc.
What “community” is this? The typical consumer has no idea what any of this is.