Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

leo_sk5 OP t1_iuahxt3 wrote

Reason for deprecation could entirely be docile, but given the recent events, my first instinct was to conclude that it must be to benefit competing standards where google is involved in development


C1ickityC1ack t1_iuaimmy wrote

What does this mean for laymen googlers who have no idea what deprecating jpegs means? Does this mean horribly compressed jpegs?


Konukaame t1_iualktz wrote

JPEG-XL (.jxl) is a new image format, and can be loosely understood to be an update to JPEG (.jpg/.jpeg).

Depreciation Deprecation means that they're dropping support for it, so if Chrome encounters a .jxl file, it won't know what to do with it.

That said, only Chromium and Firefox Nightly even had support for it in the first place, so unless you were using one of those and going somewhere that actually had .jxl content, this makes no difference in your life.


C1ickityC1ack t1_iuam9ni wrote

Thank you kind computer person.


Thirpunasorec t1_iuapnsn wrote



Ialwaysassume t1_iubh95h wrote

“Give him the stick”……..




Yokhen t1_iue6vmh wrote

Excuse me? I'm not doing anything to you, lady.


streakermaximus t1_iuanltf wrote

So it's a new format that didn't take off. Groovy.


leo_sk5 OP t1_iuar7bo wrote

That would have been seen when it would be properly supported by browsers. Chrome pushed webp support and made it commonplace across net, even though it finds no usage elsewhere. JPEG-XL to be fair took a significant time in development, but axing it in the monopoly browser means that any chance of adoption on web is fairly slim, and that would affect further adoption even if it is used in other cases, such as smartphone images (android is also google though)


zoinkability t1_iuaty8s wrote

The part that makes people skeptical is the fact that Google has their own competing next gen format. The fact that they went to the trouble of supporting it, then axed support, is a very fishy look.


TronKiwi t1_iuar9p4 wrote

Barely relevant but it's deprecate not depreciate (in this usage).


angrathias t1_iucy29m wrote

You described Obsoletion not deprecation. Deprecate means ‘do not use any more’ usually because it’s replaced with something better. Still supported though.


TronKiwi t1_iuanndm wrote

Deprecating something means dropping support for it.

JPEG XL is an extension of the familiar JPEG standard that provides better compression ratios and quality; that is to say, for the same file size, a JPEG XL is going to be much better quality than a JPEG.

This means that JPEGs as we know them are unaffected, but for whatever reason Google appears to have decided that it's not pushing forward the revolutionary JPEG XL, probably in favour of WebP.


Jakanapes t1_iuar3nc wrote

In favor of webp? That is a shockingly cynical and completely accurate assumption.


leo_sk5 OP t1_iuas5oh wrote

>probably in favour of WebP

I think it would be avif. WebP can't compete with jpeg-xl in terms of feature set. But compared to avif, jpeg-xl allows seamless transition to jpeg (for compatibility), progressive decode, higher bit depth HDR, and ability to use common encode/decode pathways with jpeg.


Active-Beginning3679 t1_iui414s wrote

Right. In terms of pure bit rate, jpeg is awful, webp is better, and avif and jpeg-xl are better still. The thing is that avif has a lot of weird quirks due to it being a hack of a video codec: AV1. JPEG-XL is a much better image format just in terms of feature set, definitely better for high quality images. I use avif because it was out first, but I planned to switch to jpeg-xl once browser support was better.


pfaccioxx t1_iuanax9 wrote

Most likely google is working on something that would complicate with JPEG-XL in some way