Re:The case against JPEG XL
by out_of_protocol on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:35AM
(#49694171)
count .png-s in the web. There's a lot. And .jxl's lossless is much better than png's. Basically any image with sharp lines (screenshots, image of a button etc) or gradients should be lossless.
Re:The case against JPEG XL
by jaffathecake on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:54AM
(#49694325)
This is outdated thinking. AVIF is really good at sharp lines & gradients. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/#:~...
Not at lossless, though.
Re:The case against JPEG XL
by SmasherEpilepti on Monday September 14, 2026 @11:35AM
(#49698752)
If you're counting by absolute numbers, 90% of the web is probably YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, Reddit, TikTok and the other major silos. I don't think those should be able to define all the web technologies for everybody else.
> Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats.
Sure, but I'm not defending JXL here in particular, just arguing against the point that lossless images are unimportant on the web.
I think its correct to say a use case that is very niche on the web isn't super important to the web. Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats. After all, the value proposition of jxl is to save some bytes. It would be different if the point was introducing images as a whole.