cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
chi
Strollin' around
Status: Trending idea

I think it's a great opportunity for Firefox to stand out by supporting JPEG XL before any other browser.

Imagine images served by Cloudflare and Cloudinary load faster and look better only with Firefox. Firefox was a pioneer of web technologies and it should win the title back, if Firefox just keep following Chrome without any differentiation, why would people choose Firefox?

If the decoder memory safety is a concern, maybe Mozilla can start a crowd funding campaign to sponsor a Rust decoder, even the campaign itself will attract reports and attentions for Firefox.

Mozilla argued AVIF was already supported as a same generation but clearly JPEG XL has many advantages:

  • Much better encoding performance (AVIF is not suitable for realtime CDN optimization at all)
  • lossless and better high fidelity (video codec based image format)
  • HDR (there will be a billion of mobile devices with real good & bright screen in just a few years)
  • Little generation loss (important for web)

Supports from Facebook, Adobe (they're adding export support), Intel and VESA, Krita, The Guardian, libvips, Cloudinary, Shopify

comparison

147 Comments
LoesenMecker
New member

This is beyond ridiculous at this point. Just support the format already. Why are you trying to inhibit progress? JPEG XL is clearly the future.

EmuAGR
Making moves

This needs to be added to Firefox stable. Chromium move was bollocks!

Simile9041
Strollin' around

Crazy how they're not doing it. The code is already there - forks like Librewolf, Waterfox and Floorp have it enabled already. This could be such a simple way to get positive headlines and make Firefox appear more progressive and competitive than Chrome.

JyrkiAlakuijala
New member

Would be nice to have now that Adobe, Samsung and Apple are using it, to have feature and quality parity with proprietary format alternatives such as ProRAW and Digital Negative that can use JPEG XL internally.

Firepal3D
New member

Even if the coding tools are still development and not fully stable, we need to give it a chance to flourish for the sake of interoperability. Just like the companies already have.

The encoder doesn't use all the format's defined features yet, but what's already there is pretty mature, and is capable of producing small pleasant image files from big pleasant image files.

I've been spending this time of low JXL interoperability using Jpegli because JPEG is the only image codec which programs unanimously recognize. This is BAD. The format's old enough to have kids, yet modern encoders are nearing the peak of what can be done within codec constraints.

cmscy
Strollin' around

@Firepal3D it's already stable, already well used, many use camera raw to export as jxl to save space, has a few limitations, like animated, avif is smaller size, but on any other case, jxl is just the better option, and apple does not launch something that is not stable, and they already backed it into safari, ios and mac, and photos

Paultimate
New member

There is zero reason in a free and open mareket why this isnt implemented in Firefox.

 

Indeed this is a measurement directly to the values of the company itself if this sort of thing is implemented. It is a direct impact on the quality of the entire internet as we know it that holds any sort of visual image media.

 

PUT IT IN FIREFOX.

RafaelLinux
New member

Totally surrealistic. Firefox says it doesn't implement JXL because there's too much to discuss and other browsers don't implement it.

However, Firefox is the only browser that implements CSS "font-variation-settings" (which I, like a fool, had started to use). NO other browser implements "font-variation-settings" in production and they can't do the same with JXL?


Firefox's justifications for not doing so are laughable.

MattAuSupport
Familiar face

Didn't I see that Chrome has ceased supporting this format, despite Google helping develop it!  Yep! Last April per Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/free-software-group-decries-google-dropping-space-saving-jpe...

Oh, and there is support in Firefox developer builds,  but it is not complete so is not in the release builds according to the official implementation bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539075

 

Dasein
Making moves

So many people want this format available in browsers, but Apple is the only one the support it in theirs? That's kinda wild to think about. Why not add it in the main builds by default and let it compete fairly with other formats? Or just let it compliment them.

luis123456789
Making moves

It's incredible that it's 2024 and Mozilla Firefox supports DRM, but not JPEG XL.

 

Lumiere_Eleve
Strollin' around

Can't wait until JPEG XL is added, while AVIF is deprecated. AV1 is great for videos, but not for images.

Mozilla, do the right choice.