(Replying to PARENT post)
But they didn't add support - they added support behind a feature flag. That's a massive difference.
👤Timon3🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Didn't they also add support for QUIC, WebP, and several others that (by nature of being internal tools at the time) had zero real world adoption?
👤dpcx🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Weird how none of that mattered when webp was forced on us.
👤whywhywhywhy🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Does anyone have an estimate on how much work it is to maintain support for JPEG XL in Chrome? Your comment sort of implies that it's the kind of thing they'd need to really weigh the pros and cons of before pushing their chips forward, but my (unfounded) assumption is that, having implemented it in the first place, the maintenance would be relatively low, essentially a dim star in the constellation of things a browser manufacturer has to maintain support for. So, it just feels odd that, faced with at least some criticism from the community, and in the face of growing support for the format (e.g. from Apple) they would choose to dig their heels in on this issue.
👤karaterobot🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Google is a multi billion dollar company. They can’t spare a few developers to maintain a mostly isolated feature? (Changes and security updates to the JPEGXL will have no impact on the rest of Chrome.)
If after a decade no one really uses it, fine remove it - no one will care if it’s unused. But to kill it in its cradle is just BS. JPEGXL should have the same opportunities WebP had.
👤worrycue🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
They add support and there's little adoption.
Who cares if there's little adoption? Why not be feature complete? It's not like Google is some cash-strapped startup.
Heck, macOS ships with terminal definitions so you can log into a Mac using a Commodore B-128 as a serial terminal. It didn't have to, and that's certainly going to have less adoption than JPEG XL.
(/usr/share/terminfo/62/b-128, if you're curious.)
👤reaperducer🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
I think the problem here is that W3C is lagging on listing which image formats are standard and vendors are shipping their own in-house tech in the vaccuum (and that W3C is composed of browser vendors means Google, Apple, Microsoft, Mozila & whoever is there from the community can't agree).