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

191–200 of 283 posts

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#191

Post by qingcharles »

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.

In some areas M is mille as in the Latin/French/Italian word for thousand, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_mille

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#192

Post by ksec »

goku12 wrote: post #156
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 sle…

It wasn't just a blatant lie for lack of interest, they also went out their way to benchmark it and somehow present it as inferior to AVIF.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#193

Post by mpyne »

darrenf wrote: post #187
lsecondario wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another one I've noticed is using "I've" as a contraction in e.g. "I've a meeting to attend". Seems totally reasonable but for some reason native speakers just don't use it that way.

Wait, what? Englishman in my 50s here and I use phrases like that all the time — “I’ll be missing standup cos I’ve a GP appointment”, “leaving at lunchtime as I’ve a train to catch”, “gotta dash, I’ve chores to do”. No one’s ever said I sound German!

I think it's more fair to call it a distinguisher of American English vs. British English.

Even just reading "I've a train to catch" gives a British accent in my mind.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#194

Post by qingcharles »

ragall wrote: post #173

Quick reminder that it's not "Google" that killed JXL before, it was the Chrome team. Jpeg XL was designed by a Google engineer (JyrkiAlakuijala here) who is not part of the Chrome team, but in Google Research in the Zurich office while the Chrome team, although it has offices all around the world, at its core is very insular and lives in the Mountain View bubble.

Jyrki is highly talented. Also the author of the incredible Jpegli, which seemed to be a reaction to Google deep-sixing JpegXL, and also Brotli, WebP lossless and WOFF2 among other things.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#195

Post by bmicraft »

inejge wrote: post #178
bmicraft wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That library had a hiatus with zero commits of over 1.5 years until recently iirc. That this is working out is a combination of wishful thinking and getting lucky.

"Code frequency" for jxl-rs shows no activity from Aug 2021 to Aug 2024, then steady work with a couple of spurts. That's both a longer hiatus and a longer period of subsequent activity (a year+ ago isn't "recently" in my book.) What data have you based your observation on?

my fallible memory of roughly the same sources

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#196

Post by jeffbee »

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.

Google did write one. They wrote the bad one that we're discussing.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#197

Post by mort96 »

izacus wrote: post #58
chimeracoder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you seen JPEG XL source code? I like the format, but the reference implementation in C++ looked pretty bad at least 2 years ago. I hope they rewrote it, because it surely looked like a security issue waiting to happen. At this point, in 2025, any substantial (non-degenerative) image processing written in C++ is a security issue waiting to happen. That's not specific to JPEG XL.

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.

Mozilla's position for some time now has been, "we aren't opposed to shipping JXL support, but we'd want to ship a decent implementation in a memory safe language, not the reference C++ implementation". That position hasn't been met with very much criticism.

Google's position, on the other hand, has been a flat-out "no, we will not ship JXL". That's what has been met with criticism. Not an imagined reluctance to shipping a C++ JXL implementation.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#199

Post by wherenow4 »

CharlesW wrote: post #130

JXL's war is not with AVIF, which is already a de-facto standard which has near-universal browser support, is enshrined as an Apple image default, will only become more popular as AV1 video does, etc. It's not going anywhere. That's not to say that JXL is bad or going away. It currently has poor browser support, but it's now finding its footing in niche use cases (archival, prosumer photography, medical), and will ev…

I seem to recall that a large part of the stated rationale at the time the Chrome Team decided to deprecate support for JXL was that they had support for both AVIF and JXL, and AVIF was good enough.

This might be the origin of the "competition" in the context of this Google decision/reversal.

Re: Google unkills JPEG XL?

#200

Post by jamiek88 »

lsecondario wrote: post #169
phatfish wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Another one I've noticed is using "I've" as a contraction in e.g. "I've a meeting to attend". Seems totally reasonable but for some reason native speakers just don't use it that way.

Nah that’s just Americans. Brits and Aussies say it all the time. Not sure about Canadians.
Post reply on HN