Comment by zaphar
2 days ago
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.
2 days ago
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.
> If you look at the issue tracker, the creator of Webp killed it because of untrue claims
I think for most modern software it's difficult to name the creator, but if you had to for webp, it would be hard to argue that it's anyone but Jyrki Alakuijala, who is in fact one of the co-creators of jpegxl and the person backing up the long-term support of the rust jxl-rs implementation, so I'm not even going to ask for a source here because it's just not true.
AFAIK Jyrki came after WebP was already announced to add lossless support; rather I’d consider Skal the creator inasmuch as it was originally just an image container for VP8 intra. He was working on WebP2 at the time Google rejected JPEG-XL and also was not involved in that decision.
1 reply →
>so I'm not even going to ask for a source here because it's just not true.
Well it is up to you to decide. The link was submitted a dozen of times on HN and the whole thing was well reported. And Jyrki Alakuijala already classify its creator status.
It's been 3 years, I might have people mixed up, but that was the justification at the time.
>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".