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

Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#111

Post by josephg »

saagarjha wrote: post #109
josephg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goalposts. You said: > Shipping unsafe C++ is easier on Apple platforms than Rust. ... Which seems false. I can easily believe that apple might not have rust tooling in their Safari build system. But that doesn't mean rust has poor support for apple platforms.

No, you're reading what you want out of my comment. The context of this thread was very clearly browser support of JPEG XL, not your apps.

Chrome and Firefox are shipping lots of rust code today. They work great on Apple platforms. They’re even both planning to use rust for JPEG XL.

What is your claim, exactly? Because as far as I can tell, there’s nothing stopping safari from using rust if they wanted to.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#112

Post by asddubs »

rdsubhas wrote: post #61

JXL is one of the technologies that I hope we can fully transition over, i.e. in a couple of years nobody (even non-tech-savvy people) are sharing or copying or saving JPEGs.

two thirds of graphics software doesn't even support webp yet. it doesn't look good

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#113

Post by Sammi »

socalgal2 wrote: post #94
Implicated wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JpegXL will be the best of all worlds choice in a few years when software support is good. Where is the software support lacking other than the browsers at this point?

I suspect there are a few 10s of thousands of websites that still only accept Jpeg (as a user upload). Some accept PNG. Few accept HEIF, almost none accept JPEG-XL

This is probably going to be the longest tail of them all.

I only accept webp, jpg, and png atm in my SaaS product. I should probably add support for HEIF right now at least. All iPhones are using that, so it's hard to get around it.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#114

Post by saagarjha »

josephg wrote: post #111
saagarjha wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're reading what you want out of my comment. The context of this thread was very clearly browser support of JPEG XL, not your apps.

Chrome and Firefox are shipping lots of rust code today. They work great on Apple platforms. They’re even both planning to use rust for JPEG XL. What is your claim, exactly? Because as far as I can tell, there’s nothing stopping safari from using rust if they wanted to.

My claim is that there is quite a bit stopping Safari from using Rust ;)

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#115

Post by flyingjoe »

dlahoda wrote: post #60
arkon_hn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention how updates are tied to OS updates...

What Updates tied? App Store updates use same networking and storage as OS? Why it is bad?

because updating a single app via the app store is faster than updating the whole OS. Having a security vulnerability in a browser could be fixed immediately, but having to ship out a whole new OS leaves it open for a while. Especially with users generally being against/too lazy to do OS updates

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#116

Post by flyingjoe »

Sammi wrote: post #113
socalgal2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there are a few 10s of thousands of websites that still only accept Jpeg (as a user upload). Some accept PNG. Few accept HEIF, almost none accept JPEG-XL

This is probably going to be the longest tail of them all. I only accept webp, jpg, and png atm in my SaaS product. I should probably add support for HEIF right now at least. All iPhones are using that, so it's hard to get around it.

Aren't they translating to JPG on upload automatically anyways?

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#117

Post by account42 »

Unai wrote: post #102
arkon_hn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention how updates are tied to OS updates...

A non-evergreen browser in 2026 should be publicly ridiculed any time its name is brought up.

Web developers who think you need the latest and greatest features to build a hypertext document are the ones who should be ridiculed.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#118

Post by account42 »

cubefox wrote: post #110
Nition wrote: post #90

I had assumed that JPEG XL was for JPEGs that are Xtra Large, since that's what XL means on clothing and pretty much everywhere else. But apparently not: > 'The etymology of the name "XL" is as follows: JPEG has called all its new standards since j2k something that starts with an X: XR, XT, XS (S for speed, since it is very fast and ultra-low-latency), and now XL. The L is supposed to mean Long term, since the goal i…

JPEG XL is also "extra large" in the sense that it covers many features of more specialized image formats. They tried to come up with a pretty universal solution. > It supports wide colour gamut as well as high dynamic range and high bit depth images. JPEG XL further includes features such as animation, alpha channels, layers, thumbnails, lossless and progressive coding (...) https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ More features ar…

It also does support XL images larger than the maximum size supported by JPEG, which is fairly low for today - only 65535 pixels in either dimension.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#119

Post by account42 »

farlight wrote: post #15
odo1242 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It compresses better than webp*, has really good progressive decoding (current encoders are able to encode the image such that the most important part of the image gets decoded first, and you only need the first ~20% of the image to display it as a thumbnail), and it's also a very flexible format (unlike avif) since it can also display lossless files* and display much larger images than AVIF can. Also the compatibili…

avif also supports lossless, but it's so inefficient it might as well not exist. Lossless webp is a completely different image format compared to lossy webp, even though they come under the same file extension. Unlike lossy webp, it's a good image format that has excellent compression ratio compared to png. I've often been using it for screenshots to avoid damaging text clarity and still maintain acceptable file size…

> Unlike lossy webp, it's a good image format that has excellent compression ratio compared to png.

Last I checked cwebp still messed up the color space when converting from png so be careful how you use it.

Re: Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms

#120

Post by account42 »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #48
sb057 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 10 spec is 2^40 pixels, which is a ~1 million x ~1 million pixel square.

I mean, a plain JPEG can tolerate up to I think 2^16 × 2^16 pixels, and already that you don’t really want to decode from a single unseekable bitstream with no index and no effort to improve locality of data required to fill a rectangular viewport. [ImageMagick’s display(1) is the best at tolerating huge JPEGs and even it, IIRC, conks out after 2^15 × 2^15.] You can allocate however many bits you want for the size, b…

Technically, progressive JPEG is a kind of limited pyramid storage and some viewers do take advantage of that do decode downscaled images quickly.
Post reply on HN