[twotwotwo]

I hope it shows up in Safari and that this sign of interest from others gets it a second shot in Chrome.

Just the JPEG recompression is arguably worth the price of entry; it's less savings than AVIF, of course, but it's easier to adopt now, where re-encoding everything as AVIF is a much larger hump to get over. Its other modes provide some real benefits for users for very-high-quality and lossless images as well as any situation where progressive display helps. For folks producing images, is much easier to fit in than AVIF for anyone who needs to encode a lot on the CPU.

[alwillis]

> I hope it shows up in Safari and that this sign of interest from others gets it a second shot in Chrome.

I'm pretty sure the Chrome team knew at the time they dropped JPEG XL that there was a decent chance Apple would implement it--there's certainly enough of a backchannel between the browser teams at Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft.

[twotwotwo]

Yeah, that is all odd to me; Google cited lack of "interest from the entire ecosystem" (https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805...). Mozilla also had an experimental JXL implemenation out there. I'd hope, like you said, that the browser vendors had enough of a backchannel to keep a good thing from fizzling because each is uncertain if the others will implement it.

But if the Chrome folks did know they had all three major browser engines were ready to go, along with the positive noises from Facebook, Adobe, other parts of Google, and a few other notable folks, that seems like a solid base of support, unless you're really expecting the world to go all-in on a format before a browser supports it without a flag. So I guess I wonder if it's that the Chrome team had set the bar high, that they hadn't expected Apple to support JXL at the time they made the call, or something else.

[alwillis]

> So I guess I wonder if it's that the Chrome team had set the bar high, that they hadn't expected Apple to support JXL at the time they made the call, or something else.

I think it’s something else.

I’ve read enough CSS Working Group (and other groups) meeting minutes to know when Google wants to implement something, that’s what they do, often when the WebKit and Mozilla teams don’t agree.

Whatever happened for Google to reverse their position on JPEG XL, I don’t believe it has anything to do with the technical merits of the format or whether Apple had planned to implement it.

[saagarjha]

Apple typically does not announce intent to implement things; they just implement them.

[schrmh]

»it's less savings than AVIF, of course,« In most cases JPEG XL will save you more than AVIF.

[twotwotwo]

Those words were about the JPEG recompressor (Brunsli) specifically, which saves about 22% but has a smoother transition from today's .jpg world than any of the new lossy formats; you can bit-for-bit reconstruct the original JPEG from the Brunsli-compressed one, and it's certainly much faster than AVIF to encode with CPUs. You can even insert Brunsli as a Content-Encoding that's transparent to the user (so right click still saves .jpg), and Chrome had an issue open to consider doing that before they backed out JXL support.