Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support

While JPEG-XL image support has been available opt-in within Firefox Nightly builds for testing, Mozilla has finally weighed in on the JPEG-XL debate and has come out "neutral" on the matter for this modern raster image file format...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-Neutral-On-JPEG-XL

[avis]

Translating marketing speech to human language:

"Our market share is so low whatever we decide is unlikely to change the status of JPEG-XL on the web".

Sad. That could have been a great distinguishing feature which could have improved the image of Firefox among IT professionals who often choose the default web browser for their peers.

And JPEG-XL still has a number of great features AVIF won't ever have not to mention that AVIF/AV1 is still insanely computationally expensive.

[skeevy420]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Sethox]

Translating marketing speech to human language:

"Our market share is so low whatever we decide is unlikely to change the status of JPEG-XL on the web".

Sad. That could have been a great distinguishing feature which could have improved the image of Firefox among IT professionals who often choose the default web browser for their peers.

And JPEG-XL still has a number of great features AVIF won't ever have not to mention that AVIF/AV1 is still insanely computationally expensive.

You are 100% right in your statement as an end-user for the commodity Mozilla is delivering, but the argument against it makes sense through a developer stand point. The Credibility-Integrity-Availability (C-I-A) dimensions tells me that it seems to be a whole lot of perspectives to think about when it comes to security (through C-I-A model alone).

The benefits to allow JPEG-XL is clear as day to bring it with Firefox. But I am in it for it's mostly stable function and nature of security in the code (like most open source projects). Now, as my argument is based of the Mozilla spokesman it carries no weight until I have further proof, so my angle is on a neutral stance of knowing too little.

[s_j_newbury]

They don't dare take a stance contradictory to the source of their main income stream.

[skeevy420]

You are 100% right in your statement as an end-user for the commodity Mozilla is delivering, but the argument against it makes sense through a developer stand point. The Credibility-Integrity-Availability (C-I-A) dimensions tells me that it seems to be a whole lot of perspectives to think about when it comes to security (through C-I-A model alone).

The benefits to allow JPEG-XL is clear as day to bring it with Firefox. But I am in it for it's mostly stable function and nature of security in the code (like most open source projects). Now, as my argument is based of the Mozilla spokesman it carries no weight until I have further proof, so my angle is on a neutral stance of knowing too little.

The problem with that Mozilla stance is that it seems like it was written by someone with no clue about image formats. One of their main points:

Overall, we don't see JPEG-XL performing enough better than its closest competitors (like AVIF) to justify addition on that basis alone. Similarly, its feature advancements don't distinguish it above the collection of formats that are already included in the platform.

is completely wrong. The reason most of us want it is literally for its feature advancements and performance abilities. It can recode the most popular format losslessly and offers ways to show nicer images will less bandwidth. Less bandwidth with equal to better performance.

Their other points of security and complexity are also wrong...well, I have no clue about security, but the complexity part is very misleading since it can use the existing format as-is as well as use its feature advancements. Adding other formats that aren't compatible with JPEG, like AVIF, is what adds unnecessary complexity. If anything, adding JPEG-XL and depreciating JPEG would add less complexity since they'd be adding a format that can handle both the new and old JPEG standards. I mean, the fucking L in JPEG-XL stands for either Long-Term or Legacy because JPEG-XL is intended to be a Long-Term replacement for JPEG and it opens legacy JPEG files.

Who did they consult?

[uid313]

And JPEG-XL still has a number of great features AVIF won't ever have not to mention that AVIF/AV1 is still insanely computationally expensive.

I didn't know AVIF was insanely computationally expensive, but that might explain the issues I had when I tried to create a large sprite sheet with ImageMagick. When I used PNG as export format it worked good, but when I used AVIF as export format my computer froze and crashed.

[carewolf]

Translating marketing speech to human language:

"Our market share is so low whatever we decide is unlikely to change the status of JPEG-XL on the web".

Sad. That could have been a great distinguishing feature which could have improved the image of Firefox among IT professionals who often choose the default web browser for their peers.

And JPEG-XL still has a number of great features AVIF won't ever have not to mention that AVIF/AV1 is still insanely computationally expensive.

Back in the day, firefox did make PNG happen. But it had stronger pros.

[pkese]

Sad.
JPEG-XL is currently the only format that's actually friendly for developers.

When somebody pastes a bunch of pixels to your software, the current procedure is to first test if it needs to be compressed with a lossy (jpeg) or lossless (png) format before proceeding (or else you either get a screenshot image with fuzzy text, or a huge size photo crop).

JPEG-XL is currently the only format that does a decent job for all, lossy, lossless and nearly lossless image compression.
In addition it can produce a single file for multiple resolutions.

[anarki2]

They don't dare take a stance contradictory to the source of their main income stream.

Or they just really don't care. Like the vast majority. I don't see any need for JPEG-XL. I really don't. In fact, I couldn't care less.