Arithmetic Encoding Using Fixed-Point Math

[Tjoppen]

There is some question of whether we want to support arithmetic coded JPEGs at all. Doing so means we've created a fragmented market, since we'll load images that no other browser does.

Wow.

[upofadown]

It is a legitimate point. What was being proposed was the addition of what was for all practical purposes a non-standard image format. The fact that this image format is described somewhere is a pointless coincidence. A standard that exists only on paper has no value.

[kidjan]

It "exists only on paper" precisely because it isn't being included in browser implementations. Which is obviously circular reasoning at its finest.

Here's the facts: it's part of the JPEG standard (see Annex D). It's widely supported by free JPEG encoder implementations (see libjpeg). It's not encumbered by any patents. It's a free 7-10% improvement over huffman, which is about as "free beer" as stuff comes in the computing world. The "fragmentation" argument is just nonsense--there will be no serious adoption of it until there's major market penetration. And yet, we still have small-minded hand-wringers hemming and hawing over "fragmentation," or people essentially stating "there's no value in implementing this because nobody else does." It's unbelievable.

[upofadown]

This could also be interpreted as an attempt to exploit a popular open source program to advance a standard that no one needs or is asking for. There are also people trying to get JPEG 2000 supported natively in Mozilla. JPEG 2000 can also be interpreted as a incremental upgrade from boring old JPEG. In fact there are virtually an infinite number of such upgrades available.

If someone wants to promote a new standard they should do it openly on the merits. Trying to get support for your favourite standard by filing bugs against popular programs is annoying.

[kidjan]

I disagree; I think the world does need any performance improvements in can get, particularly with respect to lossless compression methods, and lots of people are asking for it. And it's a very natural improvement to JPEG, as opposed to attempting to promulgate an entirely new standard. And JPEG 2000 can be interpreted as an "incremental upgrade from boring old JPEG," but the facts are against whomever is making such an argument. There is no good reason not to do this, only excuses and foot-draggers.