Comment by quikoa
2 days ago
Didn't Google refuse adding JpegXL because they claimed there wasn't enough interest? I don't think they refused out of security concerns but maybe I'm misremembering that.
2 days ago
Didn't Google refuse adding JpegXL because they claimed there wasn't enough interest? I don't think they refused out of security concerns but maybe I'm misremembering that.
Google argued that duplicating largely (I know JpegXL does support a bit more, but from most users' perspectives, they're largely right) what AVIF provided while being written in an unsafe language was not what they wanted in terms in increasing the attack surface.
And it really was the right move at the time, imo. JXL however now has better implementations and better momentum in the wider ecosystem and not just yet another image format that gets put into chrome and de facto becomes a standard.
I can confirm. I found multiple problems in the "official" cjxl encoder back in 2023 contrary to the webp2 (cwp2) implementation where I could not find any bug or error.
If the encoder have obvious problems it is not a big deal, but it doesn't bode well for the decoder.
2 replies →
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+the+old+man+does+is+alw...
2 replies →
Forcing other companies to override them is a way to prove momentum but it's not a good way to prove momentum.
> duplicating largely what AVIF provided
That's not a great bar since both of them showed up around the same time. And importantly JXL hits many use cases that AVIF doesn't.
> while being written in an unsafe language
They put little emphasis on that part when they were rejecting JXL. If they wanted to call for a safer implementation they could have done that.
Google refused to merge JpegXL as a strategy play to promote AVIF, which was in use by other teams (i think Photos?). Internally, chrome engineers were supportive of jxl but were overridden by leadership.
Do you have actual sources for this? Because the other people commenting about how the newer library removes most of the concerns explains this better than an unsubstantiated speculation about promoting AVIF.
If you look at the issue tracker, the creator of Webp killed it because of untrue claims there was no interest or advantages over existing formats.
Concerns about the implementation only came up after years of pushback forced google ton reconsider.
5 replies →
>an unsubstantiated speculation about promoting AVIF.
They deliberately made up a flawed test to show AVIF is better than JPEG XL. When most evidences shows contrary.
Bug tracker where they lied about "not enough interest".