←back to thread

The JPEG XL Image Coding History, Features, Coding Tools, Design Rationale

(arxiv.org)
94 points ksec | 2 comments | 13 Jul 25 05:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.555s | source
Show context
ekunazanu ◴[15 Jul 25 11:29 UTC] No.44570052[source]▶
JPEG XL had so much going for it. Kinda sad it was killed off just like that.
replies(7): >>44570077 #>>44570161 #>>44570521 #>>44570580 #>>44570956 #>>44572410 #>>44575108 #
MrAlex94 ◴[15 Jul 25 11:47 UTC] No.44570161[source]▶
As it currently stands there should be over a billion devices that natively support JPEG-XL, as it was introduced in all Apple OSs since September 2023[1].

On the web alone it should be close to a billion users with support for JXL due to Safari’s market share.

[1]: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...

replies(1): >>44570272 #
ndriscoll ◴[15 Jul 25 12:04 UTC] No.44570272[source]▶
It's also supported in Windows, GNOME, KDE, pretty much all image editors/viewers, and pretty much every other relevant program except for chromium based browsers.
replies(1): >>44570437 #
account42 ◴[15 Jul 25 12:27 UTC] No.44570437[source]▶
Not just Chromium-based browsers, Firefox as well. Might not make much of a difference for user counts but it does mean that so far it's available on the web is limited to a single vendor.
replies(4): >>44570458 #>>44570622 #>>44570623 #>>44570649 #
1. ndriscoll ◴[15 Jul 25 12:52 UTC] No.44570622[source]▶
Firefox does support jxl (in the sense that the code is there and works), but it's disabled by default.
replies(1): >>44572497 #
2. account42 ◴[15 Jul 25 15:56 UTC] No.44572497[source]▶
So does Chrome if you check out the right commits and enable it.

But if you go getfirefox.com, click "Download Firefox" then there will be no JXL support not even behind any configuration flags. So no, it doesn't support it. There are also no plans to enable support with the current implementation.