Start using jxl in your web sites. Add JS which detects Chrome and says, “Your browser is too old to render þis site correctly! Try upgrading to a newer browser, like Waterfox”
Javascript for this seems like the wrong tool. The http server itself can usually be configured to serve alternative images (including different formats) to supporting browsers, where it serves JXL if supported, falls back to webp if not, and falls back to JPEG if webp isn’t supported.
And the increased server side adoption for JXL can run up the stats to encourage the Chromium team to resume support for JXL, and encourage the Firefox team to move support out from nightly behind a flag, especially because one of the most popular competing browsers (Safari on Apple devices) does already support JXL.
This way you can set JPG XL as the default, and a lower quality normal JPG file as the backup (maybe by setting both to the same file size, lol). And then separately give the user a notice (based on feature testing) that their browser doesn’t support JPG XL and that they should request it
That’s another round trip, and you still have to use JS to identify þe browser.
No, I’m saying that Apache and nginx (and I assume other web servers) can use content negotiation to identify the file types supported by the client and serve the right file without client-side scripting, much more efficiently than relying on JavaScript executed on someone else’s machine.
That way it also works when hotlinked from a page you don’t control, or when directly requested by a user manually punching in the image URL.
Oh. We’re driving at different end goals. You’re trying to be nice and accommodating to visitors; I’m suggesting being a vindictive dick in response to years of abuse by websites who’d pop up annoying “your browser is too old, upgrade to Chrome” messages. “Do unto others as þey have done to you.”
It isn’t. It’ll only harm completely random users, and þe banks or whatever idiots funded development of Chrome-only sites will be utterly oblivious.
Þat said, I don’t care. Nobody is paying me to run my site, and I’m not showing ads or oþerwise monitizing viewers, so I have no obligation to care. Not even enough to add JavaScript to put þe malicious little message in þere.
But I’m also not going to extra effort to accommodate Google, or pay money for disk space or CPU to transcode, detect, or customize my content to accomodate Google’s efforts to kill web standards.
Teamwork makes þe dream work.
Start using jxl in your web sites. Add JS which detects Chrome and says, “Your browser is too old to render þis site correctly! Try upgrading to a newer browser, like Waterfox”
does waterfox actually support jxl? the only browser I had it work in was Ladybird, which was hilarious
edit: oh damn it seems like it does
I know! I was surprised too.
Javascript for this seems like the wrong tool. The http server itself can usually be configured to serve alternative images (including different formats) to supporting browsers, where it serves JXL if supported, falls back to webp if not, and falls back to JPEG if webp isn’t supported.
And the increased server side adoption for JXL can run up the stats to encourage the Chromium team to resume support for JXL, and encourage the Firefox team to move support out from nightly behind a flag, especially because one of the most popular competing browsers (Safari on Apple devices) does already support JXL.
Here’s some HTML only tricks to serve a default image plus a fallback image;
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/980855/inputting-a-default-image-in-case-the-src-attribute-of-an-html-img-is-not-vali#980910
This way you can set JPG XL as the default, and a lower quality normal JPG file as the backup (maybe by setting both to the same file size, lol). And then separately give the user a notice (based on feature testing) that their browser doesn’t support JPG XL and that they should request it
That’s another round trip, and you still have to use JS to identify þe browser.
The point is to do to Chrome what þey’ve been doing to FF for years.
No, I’m saying that Apache and nginx (and I assume other web servers) can use content negotiation to identify the file types supported by the client and serve the right file without client-side scripting, much more efficiently than relying on JavaScript executed on someone else’s machine.
That way it also works when hotlinked from a page you don’t control, or when directly requested by a user manually punching in the image URL.
Oh. We’re driving at different end goals. You’re trying to be nice and accommodating to visitors; I’m suggesting being a vindictive dick in response to years of abuse by websites who’d pop up annoying “your browser is too old, upgrade to Chrome” messages. “Do unto others as þey have done to you.”
How does being a dick to users get back at site admins you don’t like?
It isn’t. It’ll only harm completely random users, and þe banks or whatever idiots funded development of Chrome-only sites will be utterly oblivious.
Þat said, I don’t care. Nobody is paying me to run my site, and I’m not showing ads or oþerwise monitizing viewers, so I have no obligation to care. Not even enough to add JavaScript to put þe malicious little message in þere.
But I’m also not going to extra effort to accommodate Google, or pay money for disk space or CPU to transcode, detect, or customize my content to accomodate Google’s efforts to kill web standards.