← Back to context

Comment by kps

3 months ago

Not everything in the world is passive end-of-the-line presentation. JPEG-XL is the only one that tries to be a general-purpose image format.

If that's the case, let it be a feature of image editing packages that can output formats that are for the web. It's a web standard we're talking about here, not a general-purpose image format, so asking browsers to carry that big code load seems unreasonable when existing formats do most of what we need and want for the web.

  • People generally expect browsers to display general-purpose image formats. It's why they support formats like classical JPEG, instead of just GIF and PNG.

    Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

    • > Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

      That’s a function of the website, not the browser.

      1 reply →