Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal (windowsreport.com)
- Reference: 0180187573
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/11/23/2026246/google-revisits-jpeg-xl-in-chromium-after-earlier-removal
- Source link: https://windowsreport.com/google-revisits-jpeg-xl-in-chromium-after-earlier-removal/
> In a recent note to developers, a [3]Chrome team representative confirmed that work has restarted to bring JPEG XL to Chromium and said Google "would ship it in Chrome" once long-term maintenance and the usual launch requirements are met.
>
> The team explained that other platforms moved ahead. Safari supports JPEG XL, and Windows 11 users can add native support through an image extension from Microsoft Store. The format is also confirmed for use in PDF documents. There has been continuous demand from developers and users who ask for its return.
>
> Before Google ships the feature in Chrome, the company wants the integration to be secure and supported over time. A developer has submitted new code that reintroduces JPEG XL to Chromium. This version is marked as feature complete. The developer [4]said it also "includes animation support," which earlier implementations did not offer.
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/10/31/2236220/why-google-is-removing-jpeg-xl-support-from-chrome
[2] https://windowsreport.com/google-revisits-jpeg-xl-in-chromium-after-earlier-removal/
[3] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKcBw219k/m/NmOyvMCCBAAJ
[4] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKcBw219k/m/NeiCV32tBAAJ
Can't Help But Think (Score:3)
I can't help but think that Google's decision to abandon JPEG XL was based, at least in part, on the development of their own image format: WebP. I can only assume that their reversal on JPEG XL means that their plans for WebP haven't been as successful as they had hoped. In any event, this is good for competition among image formats.
Re: (Score:2)
JPEG XL was also an image format Google worked on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess it's nice to support JPEG XL if you want to access an online photo album or something like that using that format but for website development, I'd stick to more conventional image formats anyway to make sure it is supported by a variety of browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
JPEGXL really does everything webp does and so much more, and it's well thought out.
WebP isn't terrible; they are smaller than I would have guessed given that they have the container overhead, but there's no stunning argument for it. "Better than PNG for what we used PNG for." OK, true, but.
Google should just let AV1 be AV1 and focus on pushing HEVC out of the market with it. The real opponents of progress have left the image space and are mucking around with video and VR now. Google has the capability t
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't even webP, but a different standard entirely called [1]UltraHDR image format [android.com] that just used JPEGs with a "gain map" that they rolled out to like, Instagram through a partnership and that's it. Reason being if you launched a "new product" at Google you got a huge bonus and a promotion, and a free image format no one wanted or asked for that went nowhere counts, while a free engineering standard like JPEG XL did not. So screw your "interoperability" I want my bad incentive money!
[1] https://developer.android.com/media/platform/hdr-image-format
Why use a browser made by an advertising company? (Score:2)
Why not just top it off with Kaperski anti-virus. LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Take off the beer goggles and realize you were staring at capitalism the whole time you were raving about wokeness