Chrome 155 Ships Decoding Support For JPEG XL 11
Google has released Chrome 155 with support for decoding JPEG XL images, a format that offers 30-50% better compression than JPEG along with lossless compression, JPEG transcoding, HDR, animation, and progressive decoding. From a blog post: We expect that JPEG XL is most helpful for high-fidelity or lossless compression, especially of photographic images or in cases in which fine-grained progressive decoding is preferred. In this post, we share why we brought JPEG XL to Chrome, how we used Rust to ensure memory safety first, the extensive performance work that makes it fast, and what the journey tells us about developer feedback and the web standards ecosystem.
[...] With JPEG XL officially landing in Chrome, the web becomes faster, richer, and safer. We encourage developers, content creators, and platform owners to start using .jxl images and animations in their pipelines. Try it out, file bugs, and help us continue building a faster and safer web for everyone.
[...] With JPEG XL officially landing in Chrome, the web becomes faster, richer, and safer. We encourage developers, content creators, and platform owners to start using .jxl images and animations in their pipelines. Try it out, file bugs, and help us continue building a faster and safer web for everyone.
Everyones on a fscking "journey" (Score:1)
No you pasty faced basement dwellers, a "journey" is when you get off your fat backsides and travel in the real world. Its not just completing a work task however long it might take.
Re: (Score:2)
May the 'phors be with you! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Safer? (Score:3)
The hell are they talking about "safer?" What is unsafe about PNG and JPEG?
Stupid marketing trash.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are referring to "we used Rust to ensure memory safety first"
Re:Safer? (Score:5, Informative)
It's the same jxl-rs library that Google co-developed with Mozilla for Firefox [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The hell are they talking about "safer?" What is unsafe about PNG and JPEG?
Stupid marketing trash.
We have a long history of exploiting decoders. Image based malware exists, has for decades. Hell back in 2004 the Windows GDI+ library had a arbitrary code execution attack trigged by simply opening a Office document with a specific embedded JPEG image, or using Office to attempt to insert a specific JPEG image into the document. I don't think IE was affected so it wasn't a remote execution from what I recall. That's just one example. Exploiting of decoders is a thing.
The attacks often exploit standard soft
Translation (Score:2)
Our beneficence now allows corporations to put JPEG XL images on their web-pages.
Because web-pages are prettier: Trust us, we've been dumbing-down our browser for your benefit.
Too bad... (Score:2)
...I locked myself to 149 because I don't want to see ads.