Hello, so when will be the JPEG XL issue reopened? Request for reopen here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1451807
Since Safari added support, I think it deserves new discussion. Original issue: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 Thanks. --- Dne úterý 20. června 2023 v 17:51:12 UTC+2 uživatel Simon Pieters napsal: On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:35 PM ― <hmz2...@gmail.com> wrote: Worth Noting: On top of Apple support, Mozilla is now looking into Jxl integration again. From neutral to positive. This is incorrect. https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#jpegxl is still neutral. cheers, Chrome will need feature parity even if chromium doesn’t have it. On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 15:32, ― <hmz2...@gmail.com> wrote: *Update:* Firefox: In testing builds. (Neutral - depending on support from community.) Safari (& iOS): Currently undergoing testing & implementation as of latest iOS/macOS dev previews. (Positive.) Web Developers & Community: (Very Positive Support) - - - - - - - - - Support added by a lot of apps with more showing support should Google Chrome (and ChromeOS) support the format by default & Android Community has requested support for it too alongside some in the Windows Insider Community. This would also be welcomed by the Digital art community, the medical community for scans, and have benefits for streamlining online image storage with a healthy balance of quality vs size taken up. Fwiw, I also support JPG-XL adoption to have healthy competition with AVIF/WebP and I'm neither a developer nor a representative of any company. Just a tech user enthusiast, I've also met countless of people supporting the view. 1,000 in Chromium bug tracker over 500 in Mozilla's Trending Feature Requests, then you have those on reddit and Phoronix wishing to raise their support for the matter. But let's not beat around the bush here, support from Chromium/Chrome can make or break something like this, regardless of whether or not it is logically right to do so, Google knows that fact all too well by now. On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, 11:50 Albert Andaluz González, <albertanda...@gmail.com> wrote: The Chrome status page (https://chromestatus.com/feature/5188299478007808) should now mention that Webkit supports jpeg-xl, at least for Safari 17 beta onwards. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release- notes/safari-17-release-notes See also relevant WWDC2023 session (Explore media formats for the web) : https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10122/ (available 8th June) El sábado, 17 de diciembre de 2022 a las 22:55:47 UTC+1, ⸻ “How Things Work” escribió: 800 Users with hundreds of comments seem to be distrustful after the previous ones, can't that be considered or taken into account for the request? There are many developers from quite a few big name companies such as Facebook/Meta & Intel too. Also use cases highlighted, such as Medical Imaging. Regardless of how this is spun, it would seem that this format would see widespread adoption & implementation across multiple industries if it were permitted to be enabled by default. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 - One again leaving this link for reference, please reconsider, a lot of work would go to waste when we could all just compromise and improve on the format in the future On Saturday 17 December 2022 at 03:53:10 UTC Yaowu Xu wrote: Thanks for the feedback regarding speed tests, please see updated decoding timing info on latest builds on more platforms: https://storage. googleapis.com/avif-comparison/decode-timing.html On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:19:40 AM UTC-8 Markus K. wrote: I find it very concerning that this decision is has evidently been based on this bogous data: https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html 1. The speed comparison is based on a buggy and outdated JPEG XL implementation. 2. The filesize comparison is based on a metric that JPEG XL was not tuned for. On top of that we seem to have completely misjudged ecosystem and industry demand for JPEG XL . And there seems to have been no consideration for certain features, which I don't want to reiterate here, that AVIF just doesn't support. I think there is a place for JPEG XL alongside AVIF. I would suggest to halt the removal of the JPEG XL experiment in Chromium until this is addressed to prevent further harm based on bad science. On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:00:22 PM UTC+1 ⸻ “How Things Work” wrote: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 - Also requesting a reconsideration of.JXL as a format due to cross-industry interest from companies & consumers alike. Also on the grounds of it being hindered by being buried behind an obscure flag within beta builds :/ Could just revert the removal till the M111 or 112 builds and see how things stand then, would give time for debate *& a more fairer test of market sentiment for this open JPEG standard*. On Friday 2 December 2022 at 23:05:15 UTC Tomáš Poledný wrote: Now you should run your tests again with this: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4031214 Dne pátek 2. prosince 2022 v 22:20:19 UTC+1 uživatel Jarek Duda napsal: If there are objectivity concerns, maybe there available tests of independent sources? For example Phoronix often uses libjxl in benchmarks - at least for speed getting very different numbers: https://www.phoronix.com/ review/aocc4-gcc-clang/3 - maybe there are available other independent tests? [image: obraz.png] On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 6:57:35 PM UTC+1 Yaowu Xu wrote: Following Jim’s previous note, here is a link to tests <https://storage.googleapis.com/avif-comparison/index.html> AVIF engineers ran comparing AVIF to JPEG, WebP and JPEG-XL. The tests provide all the necessary code, test sets and parameters to reproduce the test results. Developers are welcome to ask questions and submit feedback to avif-f...@googlegroups.com. Apologies for the delay in providing this information. We wanted to be sure that everyone would be able to duplicate and verify these results for themselves before posting. On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 7:58:28 AM UTC-8 Jim Bankoski wrote: Helping the web to evolve is challenging, and it requires us to make difficult choices. We've also heard from our browser and device partners that every additional format adds costs (monetary or hardware), and we’re very much aware that these costs are borne by those outside of Google. When we evaluate new media formats, the first question we have to ask is whether the format works best for the web. With respect to new image formats such as JPEG XL, that means we have to look comprehensively at many factors: compression performance across a broad range of images; is the decoder fast, allowing for speedy rendering of smaller images; are there fast encoders, ideally with hardware support, that keep encoding costs reasonable for large users; can we optimize existing formats to meet any new use-cases, rather than adding support for an additional format; do other browsers and OSes support it? After weighing the data, we’ve decided to stop Chrome’s JPEG XL experiment and remove the code associated with the experiment. We'll work to publish data in the next couple of weeks. For those who want to use JPEG XL in Chrome, we believe a WebAssembly (Wasm) implementation is both performant and a great path forward. Jim On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 11:01:44 AM UTC-7 ash...@scirra.com wrote: Apologies for bringing back an old thread, but I thought it was important to bring this up here. I was surprised to read that Google are abandoning their efforts to implement JPEG-XL: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/ issues/detail?id=1178058#c84 As I understood it, JPEG-XL brought significant improvements over existing image formats, and had a lot of interest in the technology world. However the reasons cited were apparently lack of benefits and lack of interest. I for one was interested in this format and the improvements it would bring, and it seems many others are disappointed too. Can Google explain how they came to this conclusion? How are they evaluating the benefits and interest? Even this intent to prototype lists many of the purported benefits and the extent of the interest, which makes this reversal particularly hard to understand. On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:20, 'Moritz Firsching' via blink-dev < blin...@chromium.org> wrote: Contact emails *de...@chromium.org, firs...@google.com, lo...@google.com, jy...@google.com* Explainer *https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ <https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/>http://ds.jpeg.org/whitepapers/jpeg-xl-whitepaper.pdf <http://ds.jpeg.org/whitepapers/jpeg-xl-whitepaper.pdf>*Specification *https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03565>*Summary *JPEG XL is a new royalty-free image codec targeting the image quality as found on the web, providing about ~60% size savings when compared to original JPEG at the same perceptual quality, while supporting modern features like HDR, animation, alpha channel, lossless JPEG recompression, lossless and progressive modes. It is based on Google's PIK and Cloudinary's FUIF, and is in the final steps of standardization with ISO.This feature enables image/jxl decoding support in the blink renderer.*Blink component *Blink>Image <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EImage>* Motivation *The main motivations for supporting JPEG XL in Chrome are: - The improvement in image quality vs image size, about 60% file size savings for the same visual quality (lossy compression of larger originals) when compared to JPEG at the qualities found on the web.- Improved visual latency by both smaller download sizes and supporting progressive decoding modes. - Support for HDR, animation and progressive all together in the same image codec. - Support for lossless-recompressed JPEGs - Ecosystem interest in JPEG XL: Several Google teams evaluated using JPEG XL for storing and delivering images, as well as outside of Google: including CDNs interest in storing lossless-recompressed JPEGs as JPEG XL and converting to JPEG on request is the browser doesn't support JXL. Facebook is exploring to use JPEG XL.*Initial public proposal *Support decoding image/jxl behind a feature flag which is turned off by default on all platforms. *Search tags *jxl <https://www.chromestatus.com/features#tags:jxl>*TAG review *Not applicable for image decoders*TAG review status *Not applicable*Risks Interoperability and Compatibility *JPEG XL is in the final stage ISO standardization. Firefox has an open bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075>Edge/Safari - no signals yetGecko: No signalWebKit: No signalWeb developers: high interest/many stars in the tracking bug, and there was a separate external crbug requesting the feature. A lot of interest on encode.su <http://encode.su>, r/jpegxl, <https://reddit.com/r/jpegxl/> discord <https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103>, ...*Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> ? *No, but planning to have complete tests before shipping. *Tracking bug *https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058 <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058>*Launch bug *https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178040 <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178040>*Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5188299478007808 This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status <https://www.chromestatus.com/>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMM7wxZEBJ8uf5OB% 3DR1j2J6w5OF8OT1o%2B%2BN4t8G_brOo-Zgh_w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMM7wxZEBJ8uf5OB%3DR1j2J6w5OF8OT1o%2B%2BN4t8G_brOo-Zgh_w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACf2j71RrPYrWOHEXFvkcL6% 3Dx9tFfDK_id2C40Mo3HHQcxRj9w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACf2j71RrPYrWOHEXFvkcL6%3Dx9tFfDK_id2C40Mo3HHQcxRj9w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- Simon Pieters https://www.mozilla.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/df7830ef-c349-403f-8e70-afe80662187dn%40chromium.org.
