Support JPEG XL

[chi]

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

[LoesenMecker]

This is beyond ridiculous at this point. Just support the format already. Why are you trying to inhibit progress? JPEG XL is clearly the future.

[EmuAGR]

This needs to be added to Firefox stable. Chromium move was bollocks!

[Simile9041]

Crazy how they're not doing it. The code is already there - forks like Librewolf, Waterfox and Floorp have it enabled already. This could be such a simple way to get positive headlines and make Firefox appear more progressive and competitive than Chrome.

[JyrkiAlakuijala]

Would be nice to have now that Adobe, Samsung and Apple are using it, to have feature and quality parity with proprietary format alternatives such as ProRAW and Digital Negative that can use JPEG XL internally.

[Firepal3D]

Even if the coding tools are still development and not fully stable, we need to give it a chance to flourish for the sake of interoperability. Just like the companies already have.

The encoder doesn't use all the format's defined features yet, but what's already there is pretty mature, and is capable of producing small pleasant image files from big pleasant image files.

I've been spending this time of low JXL interoperability using Jpegli because JPEG is the only image codec which programs unanimously recognize. This is BAD. The format's old enough to have kids, yet modern encoders are nearing the peak of what can be done within codec constraints.

[cmscy]

@Firepal3D it's already stable, already well used, many use camera raw to export as jxl to save space, has a few limitations, like animated, avif is smaller size, but on any other case, jxl is just the better option, and apple does not launch something that is not stable, and they already backed it into safari, ios and mac, and photos