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

131–140 of 283 posts

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#131

Post by WheatMillington »

palmotea wrote: post #123
aw1621107 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to tokei, the lib/ directory from the reference implementation [0] has 93821 lines of C++ code and 22164 lines of "C Header" (which seems to be a mix of C++ headers, C headers, and headers that are compatible with both C and C++). The tools/ directory adds 16314 lines of C++ code and 1952 lines of "C Header". So at least if GP was talking about libjxl "100K+" would be more accurate. [0]: https://github.com/…

>> 100M+ is a bit more than i would expect for an image format. have i not been paying attention > So at least if GP was talking about libjxl "100K+" would be more accurate. M can mean thousands and I think it's common to use it used that way in finance and finance-adjacent areas: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/A... : > A. You’ve identified two commonly used conventions in finance, one der…

I assume this is regional... I work in accounting and finance in New Zealand (generally following ordinary Western/Commonwealth standards) and I've never heard of using M for thousands. If I used that I would confuse the hell out of everyone around me.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#132

Post by mkaic »

WheatMillington wrote: post #131
palmotea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 100M+ is a bit more than i would expect for an image format. have i not been paying attention > So at least if GP was talking about libjxl "100K+" would be more accurate. M can mean thousands and I think it's common to use it used that way in finance and finance-adjacent areas: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/A... : > A. You’ve identified two commonly used conventions in finance, one der…

I assume this is regional... I work in accounting and finance in New Zealand (generally following ordinary Western/Commonwealth standards) and I've never heard of using M for thousands. If I used that I would confuse the hell out of everyone around me.

"It's... a regional dialect."

"What region?"

"Er, upstate New York."

"Really. Well, I'm from Utica and I've never heard anyone use the phrase '100M' to mean '100 thousand'"

"Oh, no, not in Utica. It's an Albany expression."

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#133

Post by ChrisArchitect »

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #18
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

[dupe] Main recent discussion: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46021179

not to mention this other dupe with lots of discussion also from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46033330

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#134

Post by m-schuetz »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3

As a monopoly, Google should be barred from having standards positions and be legally required to build and support the web standards as determined by other parties. The insanity that the web platform is just "whatever Google's whims are" remains insane and mercurial. The web platform should not be as inconsistent as Google's own product strategies, wonder if XSLT will get unkilled in a few months.

Nah, google paved the way forward with vital developments like WebGPU und import maps. I stopped using and supporting Firefox because they refused to improve the internet.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#135

Post by izacus »

usrnm wrote: post #85
izacus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet whole of HN is VERY VERY angry because Google won't ship that pile of C++ into most popular software (and app framework) in the world.

The most popular software in question is also a giant pile of C++, btw.

What are you saying here?

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#136

Post by izacus »

ux266478 wrote: post #105
izacus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet whole of HN is VERY VERY angry because Google won't ship that pile of C++ into most popular software (and app framework) in the world.

Who is saying Google should ship the reference implementation? It's a standard, and Google has the labor to write their own implementation.

That sounds like an even more request for someone to do for free, doesn't it?

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#137

Post by izacus »

scheme271 wrote: post #71
izacus wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Web standard I meant. The OP didn't talk about PDFs from context.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#138

Post by josefx »

m-schuetz wrote: post #134
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3

As a monopoly, Google should be barred from having standards positions and be legally required to build and support the web standards as determined by other parties. The insanity that the web platform is just "whatever Google's whims are" remains insane and mercurial. The web platform should not be as inconsistent as Google's own product strategies, wonder if XSLT will get unkilled in a few months.

Nah, google paved the way forward with vital developments like WebGPU und import maps. I stopped using and supporting Firefox because they refused to improve the internet.

Not everyone is using their browser to mine dogecoin.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#139

Post by jeffbee »

dpark wrote: post #118
jeffbee wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web was designed from the start to solve this problem and you can serve alternate formats to user agents which will select the one they support.

Your statement here amounts to “you can serve JPEG XL to other browsers, just not Chrome”. Yeah, that’s what I said.

This is the way of web. Sites don't get to dictate what the user agent does. The clue is in the name: user agent.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#140

Post by ballpug »

Compressing image files from 100k+ lines of C++ in libjxl repository, which contains JPEG XL reference implementation.

Encoding and decoding JPEG XL file is: #djxl input.jxl output.png.

Post reply on HN