Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That was Mozilla's stance. Google was thoroughly hostile towards it. They closed the original issue citing a lack of interest among users, despite the users themselves complaining loudly against it. The only thing I'm not sure about is why they decided to reopen it. They may have decided that they didn't need this much bad PR. Or someone inside may have been annoyed by it just as much as we are.

PS: I'm a bit too sleepy to search for the original discussion. Apologies for not linking it here.





> The only thing I'm not sure about is why they decided to reopen it.

It's almost certainly due to the PDF Association adding JPEG XL as a supported image format to the ISO standard for PDFs; considering Google's 180 on JPEG XL support came just a few days after the PDF Association's announcement.


That would make sense, since they would then need support for JXL for the embedded PDF viewer anyway. Unless they want it to choke on valid PDFs that include JXL images.

I see! Thanks for pointing out this very interesting correlation. So we got something better only because someone else equally influential forced their hand. Otherwise the users be damned, for all they care, it seems.

I have been relentlessly shilling JPEG-XL's technological superiority especially against their joke of an alternative and a stain on the Internet they call WebP

https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1b30f8h/image_...

https://youtu.be/w7UDJUCMTng


Some of the same people developed both. Pretty sure Jyrki Alakuijala for example led the development of lossless mode for both WebP and JPEG-XL.

It wasn't just a blatant lie for lack of interest, they also went out their way to benchmark it and somehow present it as inferior to AVIF.

IIRC they benchmarked it as "not much better" than AVIF, not inferior.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: