I think it's a great opportunity for Firefox to stand out by supporting JPEG XL before any other browser.
Imagine images served by Cloudflare and Cloudinary load faster and look better only with Firefox. Firefox was a pioneer of web technologies and it should win the title back, if Firefox just keep following Chrome without any differentiation, why would people choose Firefox?
If the decoder memory safety is a concern, maybe Mozilla can start a crowd funding campaign to sponsor a Rust decoder, even the campaign itself will attract reports and attentions for Firefox.
Mozilla argued AVIF was already supported as a same generation but clearly JPEG XL has many advantages:
Supports from Facebook, Adobe (they're adding export support), Intel and VESA, Krita, The Guardian, libvips, Cloudinary, Shopify
There are patches waiting to be merged, that further improve JXL decoding in Firefox. Let's get them merged and working out of the box without having to use Nightly. So far there is no other image format with more potential right now, or even close, which makes it a no-brainer right now. Otherwise I would understand the hesitation. But there is no competition right now. Retrofitted video codecs don't compete with a real image format.
I've to agree to @Coconut :
> Retrofitted video codecs don't compete with a real image format.
I tried AVIF on 2 projects before to give it up because it's so slow that it hurts! An AVIF file is a movie of 1 single frame.
Here's a list of noteworthy replies to the issue on Chromium issue tracker. I sincerely do not understand why Google would make claims about the lack of industry interest considering the state of things. Firefox getting a headstart on JXL support could be fairly useful IMO and might finally be the thing that forces their hand. I've spent a lot of time reading through stuff about JXL vs. AVIF vs. WebP vs. JPEG vs. PNG and I sincerely believe it's a straight upgrade to everything except AVIF, and even for AVIF it's clearly superior IMO. AVIF has a slight advantage at compression for very low bitrate photographic images and basically nothing else. It might have some advantage in terms of animation but I honestly think HTML5 <video> tags + webm (VP9 or AV1) would be a much better solution to either AVIF or JXL for animation.
Strongly agree with this, the benefits are big & adoption would pick up once browsers begin implementing it. Been following the development of JPEG-XL for a while now
I've been waiting for JPEG XL support for over a year. Please put in .jxl support into Firefox as soon as reasonable.
+1 for jxl support in firefox
If maintaining new format is a problem, firefox team could just drop supporting avif and enable jxl. As only less than 0.1% website use it and many popular websites and apps are eager to adopt jxl.
JPEG XL seems to tick all the right boxes and would really benefit large groups of users with a full production feature set from low-end size-constrained image delivery to HDR image authoring/rendering (unlike WebP...).
As stated previously this format is perfect for still pictures and short animations. It replace gif, png and jpeg without any loss of quality, only gain in size.
Its lossless conversion from existing jpeg is just ideal and its progressive capability based on truncated files is dark magic!