• Browser makers Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla have announced Interop 2024, a project to promote web browser interoperability.
  • JPEG XL, a potential replacement for JPEG and PNG image formats, was not included in Interop 2024.
  • The rejection of JPEG XL has been blamed on Google, with the Google Chrome team deciding not to support the image compression technology.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/nulY6

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends
      link
      English
      37
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Mozilla has not jumped on the JPEG XL bandwagon either: The Firefox maker said it’s neutral with regard to the technology, citing cost and lack of significant differentiation from other image codecs.

      Two browser orgs.

      Not arguing just pointing it out

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3111 months ago

      I saw a web warning saying “if you cant see {x} then consider upgrading to Firefox” today and it fill me with joy

    • @abhibeckert
      link
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Why do you need to transition from jpeg to anything else? Just keep using jpeg for old files.

      Chromium is literally the only reason jpeg-xl isn’t being adopted right now

      That’s not a “reason” it’s a “decision”. Their actual reason is pretty good — they don’t want to support every image format that comes along. That’s a slippery slope, there are several hundred image formats - should they all be supported? How many of them have security flaws? How much work is it to check for security flaws even if none exist?

      The original image formats for the web, jpeg, gif, png, svg, all have major benefits compared to each other. That’s why they were successful. There used to be other widely used image formats but they all fell by the wayside because the goal is to try not to have many formats. Ideally we’d only have one.

      And WebP moves a long way in that direction, it does basically everything except vector images. AVIF is still around for efficiency reasons (it’s very really easy/fast/low battery consumption for camera hardware to create an AVIF).

      JPEG-XL has advantages but unlike those two they are really small and not worth the effort.

      • Turun
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2111 months ago

        Converting from jpeg to jxl comes some serious space savings and can be done losslessly.

        The original image formats for the web, jpeg, gif, png, all have major benefits compared to each other. That’s why they were successful.

        We change video formats without any major benefits of one over the other. I think it’s totally reasonable to do the same with image formats. Especially the data can be losslessly compressed even more.

        I wouldn’t call speed a major factor for image processing anyway. It’s hugely important for movies, where AVIF is coming from, but much less so when there is no hard 30x2160x3840 pixels/s benchmark you need to reach.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        They do run a physical machine in their living room for their website… for some reason…