Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JPEG XL support

Re:Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JP... by cesarb on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @12:38PM (#36215448)

> I can imagine a world where the first time my browser encounters a file of some new format it gives me the option to download a codec to render it

That world existed, in the 90s and early 2000s, and it was called "ActiveX". The codebase= attribute of the <object> element exists for that use case. It sucked, for two major reasons: first of all, it was a reliable way to get malware into user's machines (being "signed with a trusted cert" doesn't help when all you need for a trusted cert is money and/or hacking a trusted software publisher). Second, it was very Windows-specific, and a significant obstacle to the adoption of alternative operating systems, hardware architectures, and browsers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JP... by 13of40 on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @01:40PM (#36216401)

I don't think it was the idea behind ActiveX that made it suck, it was the implementation. Back when we were making Windows XP I found a ton of exploits where you could load an arbitrary COM component from a web page and buffer overrun it. If the same thing was based on modern sandboxed IL it would be a lot safer and more portable between platforms.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome still hasn't changed its opinion about dropping JP... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday June 06, 2023 @02:34PM (#36217160)

Activex did way more than render things.

[ Parent | on HN ]