Support JPEG2000

[ebra...@gmail.com]

As crbug.com/776477 and many WON'TFIX files before it I guess, I thought it will good to bring the discussion here.

Apparently JPEG2000 is already supported in Safari and interestingly Chrome already have openjpeg library inside the repo as a pdfium dependency and oss-fuzz already https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/list?can=1&q=openjpeg is fuzzing it so this will be less about binary size addition or adding a surface attack (which if still is, feels like security through obscurity kind of concerns.)

[PhistucK]

Do you have evidence that the codec is very commonly used? Is it a web compatibility issue? Does it move the web forward significantly (compared to all of the existing formats, including WebP)?

If not, introducing a new codec to the web usually has a very high bar.

☆PhistucK

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:21 PM <ebra...@gmail.com> wrote:

As crbug.com/776477 and many WON'TFIX files before it I guess, I thought it will good to bring the discussion here.

Apparently JPEG2000 is already supported in Safari and interestingly Chrome already have openjpeg library inside the repo as a pdfium dependency and oss-fuzz already https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/list?can=1&q=openjpeg is fuzzing it so this will be less about binary size addition or adding a surface attack (which if still is, feels like security through obscurity kind of concerns.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b36ff8f5-ba5e-4c4e-bffb-9146bb40cc83%40chromium.org.

[Ebrahim Byagowi]

> Do you have evidence that the codec is very commonly used?

Something you guys have better sources to ask from I believe.

> Is it a web compatibility issue?

The reason Safari has shipped it (per the file) can be asked I think.

> If not, introducing a new codec to the web usually has a very high bar

Understandable

[PhistucK]

I am not a Googler, so I do not have this data. :)

I assume the team did check this at some point and decided against it because of low usage and benefit (I cannot think of other reasons).

☆PhistucK

[Ebrahim Byagowi]

You know, I feel if one can wrap their jp2 images into pdf to show them on their site, it feels like an inconsistency not being able to show them directly anyway, and well, one can ask why they insist on providing their image as jp2 format.

[PhistucK]

PDF is not part of the standard web platform, it is a plugin, so it is out of scope. However, I agree with you that it seems silly to support this in one context and not in another.

☆PhistucK