Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support

[Anux]

Progressive decoding isn't appropriate for thumbnailing.

Why not? You need less compute and storage on the server, you save bandwith and the client can decide what resoluton it needs. That all sounds like a perfect fit for thumbnails and bigger image versions.

[Quackdoc]

Choosing appropriate image sizes is already a standard in HTML and it supports each and every image file format and is purely a client-side solution. Progressive decoding isn't appropriate for thumbnailing.

The server will always be aware what data the client has requested.

progressive decoding itself is not, however JXL multiple resolutions can be used as thumbnailing, progressive decoding and serving an expanding viewport with a single image. and by aware I mean you don't need a web app or for the server to implement any logic, or serving multiple images. It just needs to serve a single image, and thumbnail and regular image is solved, for any device. no more multiple pictures for varying resolutions. it can all be handled by the client browser, and no need to worry about scaling artifacts or duplicated bandwidth.

[cj.wijtmans]

JXL supports lots of arbitrary layers, like alpha channel, depth, thermal etc. so I guess so



Mozilla has no one to blame but themselves, they have an extremely loyal userbase, that can some how manage to fund their CEO to nearly 3mil in salary. in the same year lost 250 employees to "coronavirus" (despite the pay raise).

don't blame google. yes google did some shady shit, but mozilla has the majority blame to take. they are simply not the same company that they used to be.

I have some wallpapers variations of 1MB taking up 5MB if they could be stored in a single image file as variations it would probably condense to 1.2MB.