• ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Given these positive signals, we would welcome contributions

    Poor Google doesn’t have the manpower to implement it. They can only accept contributions from volunteers.

  • Eskuero@lemmy.fromshado.ws
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    1 day ago

    “we would welcome contributions to integrate a performant and memory-safe JPEG XL decoder in Chromium. In order to enable it by default in Chromium we would need a commitment to long-term maintenance.”

    yeah

  • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    1 day ago

    Given these positive signals

    Those idiots waited for 4 years because they followed the hype of the moment. I’m glad I removed Google from my life.

        • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          That used to be what Microsoft (Internet Explorer) was famous for. I guess Chrome has lived long enough to be the villain, but Firefox is still the hero to me.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                This article gives some information on why some have abandoned hope for Firefox and Mozilla. AI focus, changing its stance on selling user data, and the overall loss of focus. It’s still better than most, IMO, but some of its forks better represent those who feel that way.

    • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      1 day ago

      This must be your first time seeing what Google support looks like

      This is pretty standard unless you can get an exec’s personal attention.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It’s even more confusing than that; the X is for revision 10, and the L is for long term.

      It’s an update to the JPEG standard intended to cover expected future uses and capabilities.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. They increased the max “canvas” size and increased encoding efficiency. You’d want the file size to be smaller but the file itself to be larger (and consequently more detailed)

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Feel free to use floppy disks. Btw if you are online, you use WebP and PNG all the time 🤣

      • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because I’m tired of all this nonsense where just because a thing is a mature technology, it’s considered obsolete. Stop constantly pushing for the next thing. Keep the things that work.

        • cornshark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          1 day ago

          “How dare they invent a more efficient image encoding! Back in my day we had bmp and we liked it!” - grandpa simpson

        • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances - so it’s more efficient and quicker to load. It also supports lossless compression, transparency, and animation, none of which jpeg do. And the jpeg gets noticable visual artefacts at a much higher quality than webp does.

          People didn’t adopt it to annoy you. It’s started to replace jpeg for the same reason jpeg started to replace bmp - it’s a better, more efficient format.

          • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            Webp is a smaller file size than jpeg for the same image quality in almost all circumstances

            For lower quality images sure, for high quality ones JPEG will beat it (WebP, being an old video format, only supports a quarter of the colour resolution than JPEG does, etc.) JPEG is actually so good that it still comes out ahead in a bunch of benchmarks, it’s just it’s now starting to show it’s age technology wise (like WebP, it’s limited to 8bpc in most cases)

            It also doesn’t hurt that Google ranked sites using WebP/AVIF higher than ones that aren’t (via lighthouse).

            Edit: I should clarify, this is the lossy mode. The lossless mode gives better compression than PNG, but is still limited to 8bpc, so can’t store high bit depth, or HDR images, like PNG can.

            Edit 2: s/bpp/bpc/

        • Fifrok@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s unreasonable to stop further software development just because there’s a ‘mature’ solution around. Besides, just because a solution is ‘mature’ doesn’t make it good.

          And considering that it seems like you can still use the original, about 30 year old format, doesn’t look like there’s any harm for the folks not needing or able to use the new stuff.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          these damn kids will wake up on day and go, “why do you need xpg? jpgxl is just fine!”

          they don’t realize it yet that the only reason why jpeg xl exists is to silently slip that corpo collar around their necks.

          🤷 only time can feed wisdom and cure stupid.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would be more excited about JPEG XL if it was backward compatible. Not looking forward to yet another image standard that requires OS and hardware upgrades simply so servers can save a few bytes.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      What does backward compability in image format even means? Being able to open it in windows image viewer?

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      It requires neither of those upgrades though? Unless you’re still using Windows XP I guess for some reason. It’s just an update to the image decoder