mozjpeg VS caniuse

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

It would be nice if the author would add mozjpeg[1] to the comparison. At certain sizes, it can produce smaller sizes than WebP, and because it is still a jpeg, it has a much better compatibility story, which the author alluded to.

[1]https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

image-shrinker is a simple, easy to use open source tool for shrinking images. Under the hood it uses pngquant, mozjpg, SVGO, and gifsicle. You can also install these tools individually if you need to compress some images. I often use pngquantafter exporting PNGs for web projects from Figma or similar tools. I literally run it like this:

> MozJPEG is a patch for libjpeg-turbo. Please send pull requests to libjpeg-turbo if the changes aren't specific to newly-added MozJPEG-only compression code.

https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg#mozilla-jpeg-encoder-proj...

FWIW, Mozilla has been maintaining their own fork for quite a while now[1]

AFAIK most Linux Distros have been using libjpeg-turbo as a drop-in replacement for libjpeg, after some drama in ~2010 where libjpeg came under new management, decided to break ABI/API several times over and add incompatible, non-standard format extensions[2].

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libjpeg#History

No.

See https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

Also, there is a fairly big problem with JPG that the ‘quality’ setting is not calibrated. That is you might look at one image and think it looks fine (which is subjective, depends on what you want to use the image for…) with a quality of 60%, but then you compress a million images at that rate, delete the originals, then you find that many of them look really awful. Not only that but there are images you could have compressed more and still been happy with the output.

If you are publishing images for the web consider using WebP which is consistently better, well supported now, and has a calibrated quality knob.

https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg's cjpeg tool is the command line version of the mozjpeg library, itself a fork of libjpeg-turbo. Mozjpeg performs lossless JPEG optimization. There are plenty of others out there.

Use the Mozilla JPEG Encoder, which implements several tricks for smaller file size / better visual quality. The result is still JPEG standard compatible that other software can decode.

Guetzli was already mentioned and roughly does what you are talking about.

MozJPEG [1] includes several quantization tables that are optimized for different contexts (see the quant-table flag and source code for specific tables[2]), and the default quantization table has been optimized to outperform the recommended quantization tables in the original JPEG spec (Annex K).

It's also worth noting that MozJPEG uses Trellis quantization [3] to help improve quality without a per-image brute force quantization table search. Basically rather than determining an optimal quantization table for the image, it minimizes rate distortion on a per-block level by tuning the quantized coefficients.

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg/blob/5c6a0f0971edf1ed3cf3...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellis_quantization

They're still being used. A newer, optimized JPEG encoder, mozJPEG[0], seems to use progressive encoding by default. I suspect with faster internet speeds, most images download and decode so fast that the cool 'enhance' animation doesn't happen anymore.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

Can I X, is a question about the readiness/compliance of a certain thing at time = now. Can I use CSS version X was the iconic early meme.

https://caniuse.com/?search=css3

For a generalized example, if you wanted to know if the basketball courts were ready for you to “ball it up” in a certain city, it’d be caniball.com

If you want to know if you can use a certain frontend technology, the idea is like: canwefigma?

It’s a glorified feature matrix, and usually a project of a passionate community. I approve, even if some of the memes are a bit dank.

https://caniuse.com/ is a popular tool to check what web features are working across different browsers - "can you use this and assume that it will work for others".

The article uses custom css @properties which are awesome and have 88% browser support [1].

One thing to watch out for is differences in how browsers handle setting the fallback initial-value. Chrome will use initial-value if CSS variable is undefined OR set to an invalid value. Firefox will only use initial-value if the variable is undefined. For most projects, this won't be an issue, but for a recent project, I ended up needing to use javascript to set default values in Firefox to iron out the inconsistency between browser implementations.

[1] https://caniuse.com/?search=%40property

Safari is the only browser that doesn't support extending HTML element

https://caniuse.com/?search=Custom%20Elements

You forgot to mention (Web)Workers. This is explicit creation, management, and communication with additional threads within JavaScript. What's more, they've been around in JavaScript longer than the V8 engine has even existed!

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers...

https://caniuse.com/?search=webworkers

Do you happen to know where can I check out the cutoff version for each browser? https://caniuse.com/?search=wasm doesn't have it (or other things like WasmGC for that matter)

(https://caniuse.com/) A handy tool for checking the browser compatibility of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript features. Can I Use provides up-to-date support tables for various web technologies across different browsers.

Caniuse