Mozilla Comes Out Neutral On JPEG-XL Image Format Support

[Quackdoc]

Pale Moon has been continuously improving its jxl support since they introduced it about 3 versions ago. If you tried it with the first working version, there were various rendering and color problems. I think I recall the devs were wanting to have the first browser with any jxl support and it ended up being a work in progress.

ahh I see, ill certainly check it out, thanks for the update

[Artim]

what do you consider high fidelity? lossless? I would consider high fidelity anything accurate enough that a human wouldn't be able to tell without looking at it explicitly looking for differences when the two images are side by side. stepping up from there you have visually lossless, in which case its not expected unless by pixel peeping to be able to realistically tell a difference, and then real lossless.

optimized jpegs are suitable enough for high fidelity. however JXL is better, and is still better then avif. also when I mean high fidelity, I mean when comparing from the source, not necessarily exported from lightroom

In this context anything that requires the use of JXL. Whatever that might be. That's simply not a thing.

[Artim]

phoronix -- will you ever do something about vbulletin spam filters? Surely when an account is over 10 years old or over 1000 posts it's unlikely to be a bot. All the false positives really put a damper on this website.

Not exactly an indicator of a trustworthy account. That combination would also be true for an old account that simply got hacked.

[avis]

phoronix -- will you ever do something about vbulletin spam filters? Surely when an account is over 10 years old or over 1000 posts it's unlikely to be a bot. All the false positives really put a damper on this website.

Well I've seen 15 yo accounts being banned because people are just being hated and LM is ready to oblige to cater to the most radical forum users. Antispam sounds like a minor annoyance.

Also, the mentioned account is a bot. No one uses it. You need to mention account N1, the first Michael.

You could just report your own posts and they will be restored.

[Weasel]

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

Yeah, that was the joke.

[ATLief]

Reality is, the majority of users doesn't care at all about those things, they most likely wouldn't even notice them.

I often see variations of this argument regarding many different topics, and I think you're missing the point: users want compatibility with all of their devices, faster loading times, lower bandwidth usage*, and cheaper services. They don't need to know or care about the underlying technologies to appreciate those benefits, and it's stilly to ignore the preferences of literally millions or billions of people just because they can't articulate it in a way that you would prefer.

*Even if users don't notice the bandwidth or speed differences on the majority of the networks that they use, the size difference will add up over time to noticeably less bandwidth used on metered connections.

[ATLief]

The only thing that matters is what features the least capable browser (of browsers that a notable percentage of the population uses) can offer. If Chrome, Edge, or Safari lacks support for something, web developers effectively cannot use that feature. That's why IE was such a nightmare for so long - it was so popular yet so limited that the entire internet was held back by more than decade.

I think backwards-compatibility is actually one of the major benefits of JpegXL. It's computationally cheap and lossless to convert between the two formats, so websites can store their images as JpegXL's and convert them back to Jpeg's for clients that don't support the newer format.

[Artim]

I often see variations of this argument regarding many different topics, and I think you're missing the point: users want compatibility with all of their devices, faster loading times, lower bandwidth usage*, and cheaper services. They don't need to know or care about the underlying technologies to appreciate those benefits, and it's stilly to ignore the preferences of literally millions or billions of people just because they can't articulate it in a way that you would prefer.

*Even if users don't notice the bandwidth or speed differences on the majority of the networks that they use, the size difference will add up over time to noticeably less bandwidth used on metered connections.

In theory, yes. But then every website would have started serving WebP at least back in 2021 when Safari started supporting it, and would already be switching to AVIF. But my guess is, that couldn't be farther from the truth. And with your arguments, they would have switched to WebP even years earlier, with JPEG being only a Fallback for Apple users. But even that's not the case.

[Artim]

I think backwards-compatibility is actually one of the major benefits of JpegXL. It's computationally cheap and lossless to convert between the two formats, so websites can store their images as JpegXL's and convert them back to Jpeg's for clients that don't support the newer format.

Or they simply stick to whatever they currently use and maybe switch to AVIF. There's absolutely no relevant reason to support or serve JXL on the web. Even lossless transcoding isn't one. I doubt that that many images will be relevant long enough that they could be transcoded often enough that users would start to notice. And in cases where that would actually be desired, the server probably keeps the original file anyways, independent of format, and convert that to whatever new Codec is needed.

[szymon_g]

it's easy to be 'neutral' when nobody cares about your stance