@unascribed Did Google announce something that I missed in that regard?
@galaxis Chrome dropped its experimental JXL support because of a "lack of interest"
in a format that nobody has enabled by default yet
@unascribed @galaxis In other words, Chrome team decided not to take point when nobody was lining up to follow anyway.
Don't people usually complain when Google tries to force something to be a standard without wide adoption?
@galaxis @mtomczak@qoto.org yep, precisely
and "well this is a case of google NOT abusing their position to enforce a standard" doesn't hold up because google wants you to use WebP2 or AVIF instead, both things they've had major hands in
JXL is a standard by the fucking JPEG, which if you've forgotten stands for "Joint Photographic Experts Group", who are the closest thing we have to an unbiased third party to manage the standards
@unascribed @galaxis I don't think Google wants "you" (me) to use WebP2. From https://chromium.googlesource.com/codecs/libwebp2/, "WebP 2 will not be released as an image format but is used as a playground for image compression experiments."
And unfortunately, it looks like MS snapped up a key patent underlying JPEG XL (https://jpegxl.io/articles/rans/), so unless the JPEG (the group, not the format) has a magic "Get out of the US legal system free" card in their back pockets, they have a technology that currently relies on an algorithm that was granted to one company for temporary monopoly ownership. :(
I suppose we can expect Microsoft to take point on it then, but who will then trust that standard for widespread adoption?
@mtomczak There just might be a difference between "forcing adoption of a standard" and "supporting a standard so there's the opportunity for others to make use of it".
No one is going to publish jpeg-xl encoded pictures on the Web when there's no browser support. So when Chromium doesn't make even a small effort to that end, the result is enforcement of the status quo, and we're back at complaining about Google
@unascribed