Comment by eviks
3 years ago
It can, that's why you didn't say "re-add jxl", but had to mention the flag, 're-add' has no flag implication, that pedantic attempt to constraint is somehing you've made up, that's not what people want, just read those linked issues
It has a flag implication because jpeg-xl never came without being hidden behind a flag. Nothing was taken away from ordinary users at any point in time.
And I suppose the Chrome folks have the telemetry to know how many people set that damn flag.
> And I suppose the Chrome folks have the telemetry to know how many people set that damn flag.
How is that relevant? Flags are to allow testing, not to gauge interest from regular users.
>"But the plans were on display…”
> “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
> “That’s the display department.”
> “With a flashlight.”
> “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
> “So had the stairs.”
> “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
> “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”
I guess you're referring to the idea that the flag made the previous implementation practically non-existent for users. And I agree!
But "implement something new!" is a very different demand from "you took that away from us, undo that!"
1 reply →
I suppose I'll trust the reality of what actual users are expressly asking for vs. your imagination that something different is implied
Actual users, perhaps. Or maybe concern trolls paid by a patent holder who's trying to prepare the ground for a patent-based extortion scheme. Or maybe Jon Sneyers with an army of sock puppets. These "actual users" are just as real to me as Chrome's telemetry.
That said: these actual users didn't demonstrate any hacker spirit or interest in using JXL in situations where they could. Where's the wide-spread use of jxl.js (https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js) to demonstrate that there are actual users desperate for native codec support? (aside: jxl.js is based on Squoosh, which is a product of GoogleChromeLabs) If JXL is sooo important, surely people would use whatever workaround they can employ, no matter if that convinces the Chrome team or not, simply because they benefit from using it, no?
Instead all I see is people _not_ exercising their freedom and initiative to support that best-thing-since-slices-bread-apparently format but whining that Chrome is oh-so-dominant and forces their choices of codecs upon everybody else.
Okay then...
4 replies →