←back to thread

A new PNG spec

(www.programmax.net)
618 points bluedel | 8 comments | 24 Jun 25 13:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.235s | source | bottom
1. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[25 Jun 25 05:17 UTC] No.44373831[source]▶
I'm very curious to see how this will end up stacking up vs lossless jpegxl
replies(2): >>44374195 #>>44374597 #
2. Simran-B ◴[25 Jun 25 06:34 UTC] No.44374195[source]▶
I doubt it can get anywhere near. What is even the point of a new PNG version if there's something as advanced as JXL that is also royalty-free?
replies(1): >>44374383 #
3. layer8 ◴[25 Jun 25 07:04 UTC] No.44374383[source]▶
Browser support for JPEG XL is poor (basically only Safari I think), while the new PNG spec is already supported by all mainstream browsers.
replies(1): >>44374472 #
4. encom ◴[25 Jun 25 07:19 UTC] No.44374472{3}[source]▶
It's poor, only because Google is using their stranglehold on browsers, to push their own WebP trash. That company can't get broken up soon enough.
replies(1): >>44374699 #
5. LoganDark ◴[25 Jun 25 07:37 UTC] No.44374597[source]▶
For starters, you're actually able to use PNG.
6. layer8 ◴[25 Jun 25 07:55 UTC] No.44374699{4}[source]▶
Firefox also doesn’t support JPEG XL out of the box, and Chrome does support the new PNG, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
replies(2): >>44377771 #>>44386023 #
7. trallnag ◴[25 Jun 25 14:30 UTC] No.44377771{5}[source]▶
How about renaming JPEG XL to PNG or just merging the complete spec into PNG 3.0?
8. account42 ◴[26 Jun 25 10:36 UTC] No.44386023{5}[source]▶
Firefox is there to prevent/delay the forced breakup of Googles monopoly no to provide any real competition, thanks for showing another example of that.