Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
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


Strollin' around

Looks to me like Apple just announced JPEG XL support for Safari with macOS Sonoma. I think it would be wise to reconsider supporting this breakthrough image codec in Firefox, as the code has already been written for forks and PRs are open to allow JXL support any time Mozilla deems it convenient.

Strollin' around

The news that Apple is adding support in Safari really should be the final nail in the coffin for any JXL doubt. Going to be extremely embarrassing If Apple beats Mozilla to the punch on JXL browser support IMO.

New member

Here is the link to the release notes:  Safari 17 release notes 


Strollin' around

Firefox needs to learn that they can implement things that Chromium don't support it.

Strollin' around

Is this ever going to reach 'in-review' status? @Jon 

Strollin' around

This should be implemented.

Strollin' around

One more vote for support for the format. It ticks all the boxes, has superb features and virtually the only thing holding it back is the SomeCompanyWithDubiousMotives... really, we shouldn't be hold back by google!

New member

A lot of good points have been brought up already, but I'd like to reiterate the future proofing aspect.

JXL was designed with future usecases in mind. The bitstream already supports features that the current libjxl encoder barely explores if at all. This means that next to the great performance it can provide today, it also still has optimizations possible for years to come.

AVIF on the other hand is more limited by its AV1 origins even today. And with changes like it appears to be a moving target that will require more work continually put into it in the long run than the ISO specified JXL.

New member

Hello, I'm here to ask when will it finally come to Stable? I had assumed by now it would work, never bothered to check it, but as I tried today, even with the img.jxl.enabled setting set to true, my browser won't display any JPEG XL images.

How can that be? It has been almost 2 years sind this was introduced in Nightly. I do not want to use Nightly, i like to be on the safe side. But seeing how often new updates come out for Firefox, I assumed it would not take long at all until this feature (which by all accounts I have read already works flawlessly) will come to Stable as well. But 2 years, who knows how many versions come and gone, and still nothing?

Can you please explain what is going on?

New member

Why is the Mozilla Firefox still silent on this matter?

Why don't they listen to its users? What is the use of this forum?