---
Beware of having too-small fingerprint hashes though, or not checking enough of the digits.
$ echo -n retr0id_662d970782071aa7a038dce6 | sha256sum
307e0e71a409d2bf67e76c676d81bd0ff87ee228cd8f991714589d0564e6ea9a -
$ echo -n retr0id_430d19a6c51814d895666635 | sha256sum
307e0e71a4098e7fb7d72c86cd041a006181c6d8e29882b581d69d0564e6ea9a -(Doing it the "obvious" way would involve infeasible amounts of storage space)
The reason why Chrome (also a Google product) removed it at first is more likely to be internal politics. Google is a very large corporation after all, with each faction within it having its own priorities and alignments. In the case of Chrome the team there are probably more aligned with the AVIF/AOM team than with Zurich/PIK when it came to the next-gen image format to be pushed (which would explain why Chrome did not have problems with Brotli, because there wasn't a competing Google faction that is developing a replacement for gzip).
zygentoma•1mo ago
And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to find a browser that supports JPEG XL. I wonder if that was part of the reason to do this. :)
embedding-shape•1mo ago
That's probably furthest down on my list of features I look for in browser, where the top two are "Not run by a for-profit company living on extracting data from users" and "Can have tabs vertically in sidebar in a tree-based structured format".
MrAlex94•1mo ago
- Supports JXL out of the box (including support for alpha transparency and animations)
- Vertical tabs with optional tree tabs (hired the original tree style tab developer to implement the feature)
- For profit, but I don’t want your data, collect it or use it to earn a living (telemetry/analytics/experiments disabled at build time and alongside a fair few patches on top to make sure external connections are limited to what’s necessary)
Sidebar, I’m the developer of Waterfox
embedding-shape•1mo ago
While you're here, last time I came across your website (and it seems like it looks the same currently), I noticed that your browser comparison is not including Firefox, which is what you've forked from (as far as I can tell at least, it isn't made clear by the landing page actually, but the UI and name makes it obvious), which feels like it's a bit misleading almost intentionally.
MrAlex94•1mo ago
embedding-shape•1mo ago
Just adding Firefox in your comparison table really should be fine, and kind of makes me want to ask someone at Mozilla why others would be afraid of doing so.
progbits•1mo ago
Chrome and Firefox are making a very reasonable decision to wait for a memory safe decoder.
F3nd0•1mo ago
That said, have any of them subjected WebP or AVIF to the same strict requirements, or should we reserve those only for less complex codecs actually designed with images in mind?