Re:The case against JPEG XL
by bawolff on Monday September 14, 2026 @01:30AM
(#49692371)
Not to mention if you for some odd reason wanted to do gif-style animations, you can also do it with apng or webp. You shouldn't, real video format makes more sense, but even if you did there is still no reason to use gif.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Browsers only supported animated gif, not any other animated format
Re:The case against JPEG XL
by miladyincontrol on Monday September 14, 2026 @03:17AM
(#49693074)
What do you mean? Most browsers support animated jpeg xl, avif, webp and apng just fine.
Perhaps the clue is in the past tense "supported". Nowadays browsers support many formats, but in the "olden days" gif was the only way to get animations in browsers without plugins like Macromedia Flash...
Support was added a decade ago (chrome 59 (2017), firefox 3 (2008)), so you have to go back quite a while.
Re:The case against JPEG XL
by out_of_protocol on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:23AM
(#49694078)
also, don't forget - actual video format is better for animated stuff. Current default approach is .webm which is standardized .mkv container + vp9 (or av1) video + opus audio (usually no audio to as a feature parity to gif). IMO animated picture formats like .avifs are very backwards and don't add much
Re:The case against JPEG XL
by jaffathecake on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:52AM
(#49694298)
One advantage to animated AVIF is that it supports an alpha channel, which AV1 doesn't. But I guess that just points to how short-sighted it was for AV1 to omit alpha channel support.