• kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Does that also support videos? JXL was made by google but now it’s removed from chrome so I don’t think it’s making a comeback.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I don’t think Google had anything to do with it. Unless if they are part of jpeg, which is entirely possible.

          It’s not clear why they used another format, maybe someone’s boy(girl)friend worked on it.

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Barely any platforms support it. Do you know why? At the end of the day, if it’s not being adopted then it’s useless to encode images with it.

      • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        But this is about animations and not images.

        as a static image

        Means that the format basically works, but the viewer/browser doesn’t support the animation extension … or more likely the animation got erroneously re-encoded and the extension was lost.

        In the past it looked like some platforms generally move away from supporting animated images and converted them to videos or static images instead. Videos give you more control over the playback. animations either stop when they are done or loop for a fixed/infinite time. Videos can stop, pause, rewind etc.

      • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Imagine when animated GIF’s weren’t yet supported.

        useless to encode images with it.

        You know, webp wasn’t created for you. Websites switched to webp from jpg for better quality and bandwidth savings. Tell them how useless the format is.