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

Google unkills JPEG XL?

tonisagrista.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 283 posts

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#91

Post by torben-friis »

PaulHoule wrote: post #8
Finnucane wrote: post #2

Cool, that means it'll appear in ebook reading systems in five to ten years.

It'll be in PDF sooner, and my experience is that PDF >> any other system for ebooks. I liked the idea of EPUB but when I recently installed an EPUB reader to read some files I was shocked at how awful it looked whereas for 15 years I've been reading PDF files on tablets with relish.

>and my experience is that PDF >> any other system for ebooks.

Are you speaking just about technical books?

Because I can’t imagine anyone trying to read a novel in epub vs pdf on a phone or epub reader and going with the latter.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#92

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

PaulHoule wrote: post #8
Finnucane wrote: post #2

Cool, that means it'll appear in ebook reading systems in five to ten years.

It'll be in PDF sooner, and my experience is that PDF >> any other system for ebooks. I liked the idea of EPUB but when I recently installed an EPUB reader to read some files I was shocked at how awful it looked whereas for 15 years I've been reading PDF files on tablets with relish.

The worst epubs are bad because some jackass took some poorly OCRed text and dumped it into the format. The best (retail) epubs are on par with the best PDFs except you don't have to pan-and-scan to read a fucking page. It just reflows.

For novels I want and prefer epubs, but also non-novels if they were released in the last 5 years or so. PDF isn't magic, and there are bad pdfs out there too, scans of photo-copied books and other nonsense.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#93

Post by shevy-java »

"in favor of the homegrown and inferior AVIF"

I am using .avif since some years; all my old .jpg and .png files have been pretty much replaced by .avif, in particular fotos. I am not saying .avif is perfect, but IMO it is much better than .jpg or .avif.

I could have gone .webp or perhaps jpeg-xl but at the end of the day, I am quite happy with .avif as it is.

As for JPEG XL - I think the problem here is ... Google. Google dictates de-facto web-standards onto us. This is really bad. I don't want a commercial entity control my digital life.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#94

Post by jpadkins »

xg15 wrote: post #41
dpark wrote: post #27

Earlier 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?

web users make their choice via choice in browsers.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#95

Post by zorgmonkey »

It looks very likely chromium will be using jxl-rs crate for this feature [0]. My personal suspicion is that they've just been waiting for it to good enough to integrate and they didn't want to promise anything until it was ready (hence the long silence).

[0] https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40168998#comment507

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#96

Post by dpark »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #86
dpark wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Coop…

We have the legal force to do this. Google has already been determined to be abusing their illegal monopoly they have with Chrome. The penalty phase is ongoing, but consider that even forcing Google to sell Chrome was originally considered as a possible penalty. Requiring Google implement the standards as agreed by Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft is not remotely outside the realm of the legal force that could be applie…

There’s something not quite right about saying one member of an oligopoly should be forced to follow the dictates of the other members of an oligopoly. I don’t feel like this actually solves anything.

I feel like Mozilla would end up being a Google proxy in this case as they fear losing their funding and Apple and Microsoft would be incentivized to abuse their position to force Google not to do the best thing for the public but the best thing for Apple and Microsoft.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#97

Post by senbrow »

shevy-java wrote: post #93

"in favor of the homegrown and inferior AVIF" I am using .avif since some years; all my old .jpg and .png files have been pretty much replaced by .avif, in particular fotos. I am not saying .avif is perfect, but IMO it is much better than .jpg or .avif. I could have gone .webp or perhaps jpeg-xl but at the end of the day, I am quite happy with .avif as it is. As for JPEG XL - I think the problem here is ... Google. G…

no one asked, but FYI in English it is more commmon to say "for several years" instead of "since some years" :)

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#98

Post by GaggiX »

tensegrist wrote: post #63
EMM_386 wrote: post #37

Isn'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

They wanted to say 100K instead of 100M

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#100

Post by dang »

dweekly wrote: post #15

Prior HN posts/discussions: Chromium Team Re-Opens JPEG XL Feature Ticket https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46018994 FSF Slams Google over Dropping JPEG-XL in Chrome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35589179 Google set to deprecate JPEG XL support in Chrome 110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33399940 Chromium jpegxl issue closed as won't fix https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40407475

Lots more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36214955 and the links back from there, and I'm sure there are others between then and now. Too many to list!
Post reply on HN