[simon_o]

> It's a yes!

Reminds me of "You Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not You Could, You Didn't Stop To Think If You Should."

The arithmetic coding feature was already painful enough. I'm simply not in need of yet another thing that makes jpeg files more complicated to deal with.

> After weighing the data, we’ve decided to stop Chrome’s

> JPEG XL experiment and remove the code associated with

> the experiment.

> We'll work to publish data in the next couple of weeks.

Did that ever happen?

[JyrkiAlakuijala]

I don't see any downsides with Jpegli. Your Linux distro admin exchanges the lib for you, you never need to think about it, only get smaller and more beautiful files. If you use commercial software (Apple, Adobe, mobile phone cameras, Microsoft, ...) hopefully they migrate by themselves.

If they don't, literally nothing happens.

I fail to see a major downside. Perhaps open up your thinking on this?

Yes, Chrome published data.

[simon_o]

> you never need to think about it, only get smaller and more beautiful files

People said the same thing last time and it took more than 10 years until decoding worked reliably. I'm simply not interested in dealing with another JPEG++.

> Perhaps open up your thinking on this?

Nah, I'm fine. I went JXL-only for anything new I'm publishing, and if people need to switch browsers to see it – so be it.

[JyrkiAlakuijala]

It's not a new JPEG++. It creates old JPEGs, fully 100% compatible.

(Of course JXL is better still.)

[lxgr]

> I went JXL-only for anything new I'm publishing, and if people need to switch browsers to see it – so be it.

This makes your website only viewable on Safari (and by extension Apple devices) only, right?