cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
chi
Strollin' around
Status: Trending idea

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:

  • Much better encoding performance (AVIF is not suitable for realtime CDN optimization at all)
  • lossless and better high fidelity (video codec based image format)
  • HDR (there will be a billion of mobile devices with real good & bright screen in just a few years)
  • Little generation loss (important for web)

Supports from Facebook, Adobe (they're adding export support), Intel and VESA, Krita, The Guardian, libvips, Cloudinary, Shopify

comparison

125 Comments
Linux_in_a_Bit
New member

We need this so badly. Internet speeds have grown so much but average page loading times have remained almost exactly the same as the early 2000s. You know what would help? Smaller files and more optimized formats!

People in developing nations, those in remote areas, moble users, and desktop users alike will thank you if this is implemented. Please do it 🙏

toastal
New member

As a web developer and photographer, I would love to see Mozilla reconsider from neutrality to strongly support.

Archprogrammer
Strollin' around

+1

From an authoring perspective JPEG XL makes much more sense and it's important to see the benefits from a broader perspective than just last-mile content delivery to the browser (even if progressive decoding is a major benefit even there).

ffix
Strollin' around

Second* browser to support. Palemoon, a fork of Firefox, already supports jpeg xl. Could be a good bandwagon to jump on.

JonSneyers
New member

Besides Pale Moon, also Basilisk and Waterfox (two other Firefox forks) and Thorium (a Chromium fork) have added support (enabled by default) for JPEG XL.

FoxtrotCZ
New member
Saarsk
Strollin' around

Supporting JPEG XL is actually really important in terms of fairness, openness and maintaining healthy competition and options.

Google, who is the founder of a certain competing standard decided to drop support despite a large number of the biggest tech companies protesting it and asking for this to be enabled instead of removed.

Even Google's own employees seemed to be confused. No official word other than the most vague and avoidant statement followed by silence.

The fact is that it was probably the most feature-rich and promising new image formats, including for web-use. Party due to feature-completeness and compression efficiency but also backwards compatiblity with lossless re-compression and re-encoding of old JPEGs.

It made no sense for Google to kill it (or you can put two and two together and figure out their motives). Even more sad is that a large part of the rest of the industry seem to just let Google mis-use their monopoly position and competitive motives to decide the faith of an open standard before it even got the chance to live.

I does make a difference if FireFox supports it. Google already had no valid reasons (they barely bothered to try to come up with anything remotely convincing). All we need is for the project to continue being developed and the industry ought to facepalm at Google's decision and ask for the support to be re-introduced.

When they basically own the browser technology they are too big to be able to kill off a competitor like that. Google is Goliath.

EvenBoe
Strollin' around

Just heard about this JPEG XL format, sounds awesome!! 😀

xUxSxExR
Making moves

Palemoon already integrates JXL so it is totally possible.

Aerocatia
New member

Please support JPEG-XL. It is the only format that can be called a direct replacement to JPEG and PNG, since those formats can be losslessly converted to JPEG-XL with no quality loss and good size reduction across the board.

AVIF does not provide this functionality, using the lossy mode will incur quality loss and the lossless mode can sometimes perform worse than PNG.

Sticking with AVIF alone as the new image format means the vast quantity of existing PNG and JPEG content will have no direct upgrade path.