Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support

[Quackdoc]

Exactly my point though: it's trivial to implement, so why should Mozilla care? Either it gains popularity and they put it in the stable build or it fades into obscurity and remains experimental. No matter what happens, it's not a problem for Mozilla, so it doesn't matter what they think.

they should care because the number one reason tech journalists reccomend firefox is because it's a competitor to chrome and prevents chrome from having a monopoly over the web and the direction web technologies will go, so they should at least pretend that this is the case.

Who cares? Right. Absolutely no one. Whenever I have to deliver images on my websites I will use webp (which already means I am "super-progressive"). Why should I provide images in a format not supported by the browser with the largest market share (by a huge margin)? Sure I can still use my Firefox which might have awesome JPEG-XL support but I will never encounter any webpages dishing out JPEG-XL images.

I have encountered a couple sites shipping it, for instance I did fine one (https://premioinc.com/products/aco-3000-brd-u), I only know this because I had it accidentally break when I had JXL enabled on stable firefox. the issue is JXL makes a massive difference for people on slow internet since it is high fidelity at small sizes with good progressive decoding, and its smaller sizes also means that less bandwidth is used.

one of the people I talk is was actually, begrudgingly looking at jxl.js as a solution since they are dealing with a gallery, and the file size difference will make a considerable difference to them but that lacks features like alpha, and progressive decoding iirc.

but lots of people care, JXL has a lot of support from people like facebook and adobe. and people who don't know, are effected the most, people on 5mbps internet get a lot from JXL

[awesz]

What do people really expect from Google's lap dog? They've been vacillating for more than a decade.
Support a project that actually challenges the status quo.

[schmidtbag]

they should care because the number one reason tech journalists reccomend firefox is because it's a competitor to chrome and prevents chrome from having a monopoly over the web and the direction web technologies will go, so they should at least pretend that this is the case.

I don't see how Firefox's inclusion of JPEG-XL would have any impact on Chrome's monopoly.

[Quackdoc]

I don't see how Firefox's inclusion of JPEG-XL would have any impact on Chrome's monopoly.

I don't think it would, but the point is the main driving factor for support for firefox is the argument that firefox's existence prevents chrome from dictiating the future of web technology. (I think it's BS myself). but firefox does still have a chance to at least try to prove this is true, JpegXL is a highly requested and desired feature by many individuals and corporations alike.

if they had any chance at proving this sentiment to be true, JXL is still one of their biggest opportunities in doing so, especially considering that firefox's JXL support when compiled with the patches sitting in their tracker, is really good, it has working alpha, animations, progressive decoding etc. after testing it for a while via waterfox, it's a pretty good implementation, and IMO would be ready to ship in stable behind a flag. so it wouldn't even be that much work to at least test the waters.

[andyprough]

Recent versions of Pale Moon have had built-in support for jpeg-xl. Is it still the only browser to do so?

I assumed the other browsers were enabling it already, but I'm on Pale Moon 95% of the time and don't really follow what Firefox and the Google crowd are doing.

[skeevy420]

Google.

Isn't that like consulting BP or Shell for accurate solar and wind information or Marlboro for accurate lung cancer rates?

[bug77]

I think everybody misses an important thing: whatever they do, Firefox must support AV1. With AV1 support in place, adding support for AVIF is relatively straightforward. And it's with AVIF support in place, that JPEG-XL becomes not "performing enough better than its closest competitors".
We're all losing something with each format that doesn't get implemented, but we also gain something from not having a million formats around.

[skeevy420]

I think everybody misses an important thing: whatever they do, Firefox must support AV1. With AV1 support in place, adding support for AVIF is relatively straightforward. And it's with AVIF support in place, that JPEG-XL becomes not "performing enough better than its closest competitors".
We're all losing something with each format that doesn't get implemented, but we also gain something from not having a million formats around.

That argument is still a bad one since JPEG-XL also supports JPEG. They can run everything JPEG through JPEG-XL so adding in JPEG-XL means they can drop JPEG. That's really, really close to being the same thing as that important thing we all miss with AV1 and AVIF.

[xorbe]

AVIF is so slow, and whatever Gimp is using causes a strange shift by 1 pixel effect. The compression is excellent / image looks good, but the accuracy is bad. In the end, I still settled on Gimp jpg 92% for my acceptable storage of resized camera pics. Webp not even in the running due to 2x2 red only.

I guess I could say AVIF is good for the web (small files) but bad for any sort of storage or workflow. It's only a final target format, imho.

[Quackdoc]

Recent versions of Pale Moon have had built-in support for jpeg-xl. Is it still the only browser to do so?

I assumed the other browsers were enabling it already, but I'm on Pale Moon 95% of the time and don't really follow what Firefox and the Google crowd are doing.

waterfox, the fork of firefox ESR does, and it works really well, probably a lot better then palemoon last I checked

And it's with AVIF support in place, that JPEG-XL becomes not "performing enough better than its closest competitors"

this is BS propagated by the chrome team, JXL absolutely demolishes AVIF for high fidelty images, has proper alpha support, supports incredibly large images, has proper progressive decoding too. it can even utilize part of it's progressive decoding technology to support multiple resolutions with a single image.

JXL beats AVIF in nearly every metric except for low fidelity encoding, lower then most people will actually want to encode many photos in (IE a noticeable and typically distracting degree of artifacts) and for animations.