Re: JPEG 2000 (was: Multiple image files?)

Here's the note explaining the WONTFIX on Mozilla's thirteen-year-old bug:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36351#c98

"JPEG2000 is simply not used enough or important enough to justify the outlay of code, time, and increased threat surface."

I might argue that the one place where JPEG2000 *has* seen adoption is by institutions dealing with very large images -- museums, libraries, NASA -- who are trying to store a canonical source file that can be chopped and res-ed down flexibly & efficiently. Which is kind of the same problem web devs are now facing, as we try to wrangle bitmaps into responsive designs.

I'd love to hear more from browser vendors about why the format never made the cut, historically.

—eric  


On Sunday, October 20, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:

> This seems like a question for the browser vendors (John? Tab?). I'm assuming JPEG 2000 has been considered. What was the result of that consideration?
>  
>  
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eduardo Marques <ebmarques@gmail.com (mailto:ebmarques@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > IMO, those are ***THE*** keywords for the solution we need(!!!):
> >  
> > > With every client requesting just the bytes it needs from the full-res
> > source file.
> >  
> > Simple as that. Not less, not more than that.
> > The challenge is: How to do that?
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > From: lists@ericportis [mailto:lists@ericportis.com]
> > Sent: sexta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2013 16:33
> > To: Frédéric Kayser
> > Cc: public-respimg@w3.org (mailto:public-respimg@w3.org)
> > Subject: Re: JPEG 2000 (was: Multiple image files?)
> > ...
> > With every client requesting just the bytes it needs from the full-res
> > source file.
> > ...
>  
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> +1 (503) 290-1090 o | +1 (503) 502-7211 m | http://cloudfour.com

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 17:27:58 UTC