mmobder speaking of degrading security, that is based on a lie why Google has excluded libjxl (real official reason is here https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40168998). I guess the rest from competitor's "misguide"
It does degrade security simply on the fact it's a nearly useless format that is not needed whatsoever. Every single thing that is added is attack surface and if there is not a good reason to add it.... It is large attack surface over Chromium.
"By removing the flag and the code in M110, it reduces the maintenance burden and allows us to focus on improving existing formats in Chrome"
This is exactly the problem. Nothing truly beneficial about it and hinders development. This is objectively a security regression.
mmobder you've decided to write a long post without referring to your lie? Nice)
Also. You have provided literally zero valid arguments and like I said. Verify it with other sources instead of thinking for yourself instead.
You
continue to spread misinformation constantly and attack a completely honest documentation. Furthermore you make it worse by the fact you did not take it up with the person who made the documentation.
Instead you ramble about it here instead of being actually productive when this time could have been a lot better spent and I have to spend here wasting my time cause of someone who refuses to actually accept the truth. But either way I'm not going to stop until this discussion gets stopped one way or another cause I'm realistically not going to let someone sit here and spread misinformation and attack a perfectly good and honest developer.
SPEAKING OF the fact that they literally prioritize a hardened Chromium browser and assist in the development of it should say a lot in itself. Cause they prioritize security more than the Chromium Team themselves do. Yet here you are saying they are spreading misinformation when it is literally in their benefit to tell the truth here. Trivalent is a niche browser meant for security conscious linux users. As such it's accessibility is rather low there would be no reason to maliciously lie furthermore proving if you really think the dev is wrong then you should open a issue.
Even if the Google didn't remove it for security it is still obviously a security risk it isn't that hard to see once again you are looking for other sources of validation when really all it takes is some logical thinking.
"Oh I should just add a whole bunch of code for a format that is REALLY not needed" regardless of Google's actual reasoning it doesn't make a lot of sense at all for security. Every single thing has attack surface
But furthermore you seemed to ever so not kindly gloss over the fact that I didn't even push against Cromite for this. I actually mentioned i wasn't sure how to feel about it. Regardless i pushed against it for the other much more problematic aspects of it.
But if you want to continue defending a browser that is honestly terrible for security go ahead. You still have not provided valid arguments to it's bigger issues by the way (if you can even call this one with the JPEG XL a valid argument cause it's really not.)
mmobder that clearly debunks your lie.
Could you ever so kindly provide the exact text that debunks my "lie"? Cause I keep reading it over and over again and literally see more things confirming that I am correct.
And also even if SOMEHOW JPEG XL wasn't a lot of attack surface the implication alone that JPEG XL is complex and a maintenance burden would naturally imply a security regression. As good security requires good maintenance.