Unrelated but I read "it did not saw" and immediately thought, this person is Dutch. Then I saw the .nl domain. Not sure if this double-conjugation mistake is common in other ESL speakers but I hear it a lot living in the Netherlands.
[deleted]
JPEG XL Test Page
141–150 of 170 posts
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
... update. after reading the comments in the rust migration security bug, I saw they mentioned "only building in nightly for now" I grabbed the nightly firefox, flipped the jxl switch, and it does indeed render fine, so I guess the rust implementation is functioning, just not enabled in stable. ... also, I see no evidence that it was ever enabled in the stable builds, even for the C++ version, so I'm guessing Zen ju…
zen browser is pretty much vibe coded
Do you have any proof/more about this? I've never heard this claim and I'd like to know more
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#143Is the selectable text a safari thing or a JPEG XL thing?
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#144I published some benchmarks recently: https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossl... I compare PNG and the four modern formats, AVIF, HEIF, WebP, JPEG XL, on tasks/images that PNG was designed for. (Not on photographs or lossy compression.)
Would be nice to also see decompression speed and maybe a photo as a bonus round.
Yeah.
Numbers for decompression speed is one of the two things I want to add.
The other is a few more images, for more variety.
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#145Is the selectable text a safari thing or a JPEG XL thing?
"Live Text" is a iOS/macOS feature. Works in Safari, camera, photos.app, etc…
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#146> more or less means only Safari will display the image
Who is going to take the bait, and say that Safari isn't like IE?
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...
Security concerns are exactly the reason the format doesn't have native support yet. However: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
[deleted]
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonderful. Allow an "unmonitored" extension from a random stranger on the Internet have access to "all data for all websites" just to support an image format for which Mozilla should have long built in native support...
Security concerns are exactly the reason the format doesn't have native support yet. However: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
That's not the reason, but the excuse. The reason Firefox doesn't have jxl is that it is funded by Google, and someone at Google decided that it has to die.
Also the parent comment was about that you really shouldn't just let a random Russian guy run any javascript on any website you visit, that's stupid.
Also also, am I missing something, or Firefox extensions are broken, there is no way to limit an extension to websites (allow or disallow), or even just to check the source code of an extension?
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#149One thing I like about JPEG-XL is that it supports all kinds of weird image formats. For example, I used to work with depth data a lot, which is best expressed as monochrome 16-bit floating point images. Previously, TIFF was the only format that supported this. Many shops would instead save depth images as UINT16 .PNG files, where the raw pixel intensity maps to the camera distance in mm. The problem with this is tha…
On the subject of tiff, why is it not used more? I mean, it is more or less really a container format right. Why are we not using it all over the place but with modern compression methods?
It is used quite a bit.
As just one of innumerable examples, it's the basis for Adobe's DNG raw photo format and many proprietary raw formats used by camera manufacturers (Nikon NEF, Canon CRW and CR2, etc.).
Speaking as an outside observer, the ISO Base Media File Format seems to have more mindshare for newer applications, presumably on account of its broader scope and cleaner design.
Re: JPEG XL Test Page
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security concerns are exactly the reason the format doesn't have native support yet. However: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
That's not the reason , but the excuse . The reason Firefox doesn't have jxl is that it is funded by Google, and someone at Google decided that it has to die. Also the parent comment was about that you really shouldn't just let a random Russian guy run any javascript on any website you visit, that's stupid. Also also, am I missing something, or Firefox extensions are broken , there is no way to limit an extension to…
> That's not the reason, but the excuse. The reason firefox doesn't have jxl is that it is funded by Google, and someone at Google decided that it has to die.
So what, you think they were just lying when they said that they'll ship JXL when it has a Rust implementation? You think Mozilla devs were just bluffing when they were working directly with the JXL devs over the last year to make sure everything would work right?