Hacker News Reader

Not everything in the world is passive end-of-the-line presentation. JPEG-XL is the only one that tries to be a general-purpose image format.

View on HN

If that's the case, let it be a feature of image editing packages that can output formats that are for the web. It's a web standard we're talking about here, not a general-purpose image format, so asking browsers to carry that big code load seems unreasonable when existing formats do most of what we need and want for the web.

People generally expect browsers to display general-purpose image formats. It's why they support formats like classical JPEG, instead of just GIF and PNG.

Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

> Turns out people really like being able to just drag-and-drop an image from their camera into a website - being forced to re-encode first it isn't exactly popular.

That’s a function of the website, not the browser.

> That’s a function of the website, not the browser.

That's hand-waving away quite a lot. The task changes from serving a copy of a file on disk, as every other image format in common use, to needing a transcoding pipeline more akin to sites like YouTube. Technically possible, but lots of extra complexity in return for what gain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com