ZLib VS jxl.js

A fix has been checked into the upstream git repo: https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/843 but a release has not yet been made including it.

So the real issue here is that the lack of tree validation before the tree construction, I believe. I'm surprised that this check was not yet implemented (I actually checked libwebp to make sure that I was missing one). Given this blind spot, an automated test based on the domain knowledge is likely useless to catch this bug.

[1] https://github.com/madler/zlib/blob/master/examples/enough.c

In the source code of the Node.js opensource project, lib folder contains JavaScript code, mostly wrappers over C++ and function definitions. On the contrary, src folder contains C++ implementations of the functions, which pulls dependencies from the V8 project, the libuv project, the zlib project, the llhttp project, and many more - which are all placed at the deps folder.

Seeing the text in red got me thinking for a moment, "wow, didn't realize pirates had such love for an open-source compression library"

cd "${srcdir}/zlib-$pkgver/contrib/minizip" make install DESTDIR="${pkgdir}" install -D -m644 "${srcdir}/zlib-$pkgver/LICENSE" "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/minizip/LICENSE" # https://github.com/madler/zlib/pull/229 rm "${pkgdir}/usr/include/minizip/crypt.h"

> It's so frustrating how the chromium team is ending up as a gatekeeper of the Internet by pick and choosing what gets developed or not.

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js is based on Chromium tech (Squoosh from GoogleChromeLabs) and provides an opportunity to use JXL with no practical way for Chromium folks to intervene.

Even if that's a suboptimal solution, JXL's benefits supposedly should outweight the cost of integrating that, and yet I haven't seen actual JXL users running to that in droves.

So JXL might not be a good support for your theory: where people could do they still don't. Maybe the format isn't actually that important, it's just a popular meme to rehash.

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js a javascript polyfill taken from the main page https://jpegxl.info/

There are other decoders [0] written in a "safe language" (rust) listed as well. So no there are many "safe" implementations

[0] https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide

> If you care about JXL, and only want to support JXL, and you put a JXL in your picture tag, then the browser still won't render it, even if you use a picture tag.

Is this true if you provide a polyfill? Have you tried it and it failed? (Serious question.)

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

All of the people here who are so passionate about JPEG-XL will be happy to learn that there's nothing preventing them from using it on their sites right now:

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

If you want Chrome to ship with JPEG-XL support, use it. At some point, browser makers will decide it's worth the cost to them and all users to add it.

> Please be aware that some images may not load on this page unless your browser supports JPEG-XL

The site could provide a WebAssembly decoder to make the JPEG-XL images work for everyone.

For example, here's a WebAssembly decoder: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

Demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/

at this point, I'd consider just using a polyfill library to decode jpegxl data client-side, like JXL https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

:) There are some wasm vs native benchmarks in the context of JPEG XL (for example https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js#benchmark)

For adding JPEG XL support I went with jxl.js which I modified for my use case. After looking through the main file, which is also called jxl.js, I decided I only needed 2 relevant code blocks. The one to decode the image and the one to turn the ImageData into something I could display in my existing codebase (which I already partially had implemented for another use case).

It's easy - you'll get ReferenceError: SharedArrayBuffer is not defined when the COOP and COEP headers are not set. Multithreading is enabled by default if you use the scripts from multithread folder. If only SIMD is supported, it is being used. Oh, and progressive decoding is also enabled by default.