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

151–160 of 283 posts

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#151

Post by moron4hire »

dpark wrote: post #96
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, that feels like State-sponsored formalizing of oligopolies into a cartels. We'd like it if they went in the complete opposite direction of less power, not more.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#152

Post by josefx »

dpark wrote: post #52
simonw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having key browser implementers not involved in the standards processes is what lead us to the W3C wasting several years chasing XHTML 2.0.

I kind of liked xhtml, though clearly it was not necessary for the web to be successful. I think the bigger issue is that W3C pursued this to the detriment of more important investments. Reading over the minutes for the last W3C WG session before WHATWG was announced, the end result seems obvious. The eventual WHATWG folks were pushing for investment in web-as-an-app-platform and everyone else was focused on in retro…

> and another that wanted to create the platform on which Microsoft Word could be built.

Apparently they failed. The web version of Word is still far from having feature parity. Of course doc is one of those everything and the kitchen sink formats, so implementing it on top of a platform that was originally intended to share static documents is kind of a tall order.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#153

Post by phatfish »

senbrow wrote: post #97
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" :)

German speakers usually have very good English, but this is one of their tells.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#154

Post by bigbuppo »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #14
bigbuppo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they said they would unkill xslt if someone would rewrite and maintain it so that it's not the abandonware horrorshow it was. As for JPEG XL, of course they unkilled it. WEBP has been deprecated in favor of JPEG XL.

Webp deprecated? According to what?

It's all arbitrary. WEBP is deprecated, just like GIF is deprecated.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#156

Post by goku12 »

zorgmonkey wrote: post #95

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

That was Mozilla's stance. Google was thoroughly hostile towards it. They closed the original issue citing a lack of interest among users, despite the users themselves complaining loudly against it. The only thing I'm not sure about is why they decided to reopen it. They may have decided that they didn't need this much bad PR. Or someone inside may have been annoyed by it just as much as we are.

PS: I'm a bit too sleepy to search for the original discussion. Apologies for not linking it here.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#157

Post by Fileformat »

dralley wrote: post #66
Fileformat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

With all due respect, this is a completely HN-brained take. No significant number of users chooses their browser based on support for image codecs . Especially not when no relevant website will ever use them until Safari and Chrome support them. And websites which already do not bother supporting Firefox very much will bother even less if said browser by-default refuses to allow them to make revenue. They may in fact…

I don't disagree with you, but given (A) how will Firefox ever compete?

One possible way is doing things that Google and Chrome don't (can't).

Catering to niche audiences (and winning those niches) gives people a reason to use it. Maybe one of the niches takes off. Catering to advanced users not necessarily a bad way to compete.

Being a feature-for-feature copy of Chrome is not a winning strategy (IMHO).

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#159

Post by Fileformat »

dpark wrote: post #80
Fileformat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you. But a typical consumer will already be using Chrome, and has no reason to use Firefox.

If one of these advanced/niche technologies takes off, suddenly they will have a reason to use Firefox.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#160

Post by Zardoz84 »

leosanchez wrote: post #35
majora2007 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, I absolutely hate PDF. Lack of metadata for collecting, format is difficult to support, doesn't layout well on mobile, and very limited customization (like dark mode, changing text size, etc). Only benefit is browsers have built-in support for the format.

One thing I like about PDF is the annotations (notes & highlights) are embedded in the PDF itself. That is not the case for EPUB files, each EPUB reader stores annotations in its own proprietary format.

EPUB it's a glorified HTML page in a zip file.
Post reply on HN