top | item 41935879

(no title)

Metameh | 1 year ago

It would be a lot better of an analysis if it would be compared to webp and co.

Obviously is jpeg XL better than jpeg.

It's just that the support is shit

discuss

order

illiac786|1 year ago

It’s getting better, and this trend has seriously accelerated in the last months – my anecdotal observations.

libvips has now good support for jxl, it has (since 8.16) support for EXIF data in jxl files as well. All FOSS projects can now use this to kickstart their jxl support.

In the corporate world, well, we’re all waiting for Google (Chrome) and microsoft (Windows) basically. I think the rest is on board, Apple, Adobe, etc.

thisislife2|1 year ago

The support is shit only because of Google, Microsoft and Mozilla who refuse to add it to their OS / browser for their own selfish reasons. The tactic seems to be to just deliberately delay implementation to ensure JPEG-XL does not become popular. Now that Apple has adopted and deployed it on their OS platforms, hopefully others will feel the pressure to adopt it as JPEG-XL's user-base increases.

thmsths|1 year ago

I can see why Google would drag their feet because they made the competing webp standard, I am not too surprised to see Microsoft on the list either. But I don't understand why Mozilla is choosing to be difficult here?