News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by londons_explore on Saturday March 04, 2023 @07:33PM (#35025945)
I support the Chrome team with this one...

Something like an image format should either be widely used (ie. At least 5% of websites use it), or it shouldn't exist.

A format existing has a maintenance cost, a security cost, an extra barrier to people designing new browser's or web technology, etc. If fewer than 5% of sites use it, and all features can be achieved another way, then it simply isn't worth keeping support.

Sorry JPEG XL... You were a nice design, but ultimately you weren't popular enough. A bit like Server Push (web server can send your client data you'll need ahead of time saving a round trip), ScriptProcessorNode (JavaScript can mix/make audio realtime) and DANE (security with no certificate authority)... All cool tech that didn't manage to find a userbase.

Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by silisili on Saturday March 04, 2023 @08:10PM (#35026146)
A format cannot and will not get adoption until there is support. Who would sign off on using JXL when any of the large browsers don't support it?

This is a chicken-egg problem, not a popularity contest.

Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by ksec on Saturday March 04, 2023 @11:02PM (#35026819)
>Something like an image format should either be widely used (ie. At least 5% of websites use it), or it shouldn't exist.

>I support the Chrome team with this one...

WebP ......

Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by londons_explore on Sunday March 05, 2023 @03:35AM (#35027926)
WebP actually is pretty widely used... I suspect over half of browsing sessions load at least one WebP image.
Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by ksec on Sunday March 05, 2023 @03:42AM (#35027950)
And was WebP widely used before Chrome enabled support for it?
Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by jonsneyers on Sunday March 05, 2023 @08:35AM (#35029479)
WebP was supported in Chrome about a decade before it became widely used. It was even already supported before the format was even finalized: lossless and animation were added after the first (lossy-still-only) WebP support was enabled in Chrome.
Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by ksec on Monday March 06, 2023 @10:10AM (#35041885)
Yes sorry jonsneyers. I was just trying to point out the obvious.
Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by kludge41 on Sunday March 05, 2023 @07:27PM (#35035914)
How exactly are you supposed to use a format that isn't supported?

How would 5% of sites ever get to use JXL if it isn't supported in web browsers?

Re:JPEG XL vs. AVIF: A Comparison by clouddrover on Monday March 06, 2023 @03:41AM (#35038820)
By implementing the decoder in WebAssembly. It'd be lower performance than native decoding but probably not that bad.

Here's a WASM build of libjxl: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

Demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/