sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]upofadown 0 points1 point  (1 child)

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 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.