[embedding-shape]

> And also at the same time a good reminder for everyone to find a browser that supports JPEG XL

That's probably furthest down on my list of features I look for in browser, where the top two are "Not run by a for-profit company living on extracting data from users" and "Can have tabs vertically in sidebar in a tree-based structured format".

[MrAlex94]

Waterfox might be what you’re after?

- Supports JXL out of the box (including support for alpha transparency and animations)

- Vertical tabs with optional tree tabs (hired the original tree style tab developer to implement the feature)

- For profit, but I don’t want your data, collect it or use it to earn a living (telemetry/analytics/experiments disabled at build time and alongside a fair few patches on top to make sure external connections are limited to what’s necessary)

Sidebar, I’m the developer of Waterfox

[embedding-shape]

Firefox (with minor changes + addons) is what I use today, works well for what I care about. Thanks for the recommendation though!

While you're here, last time I came across your website (and it seems like it looks the same currently), I noticed that your browser comparison is not including Firefox, which is what you've forked from (as far as I can tell at least, it isn't made clear by the landing page actually, but the UI and name makes it obvious), which feels like it's a bit misleading almost intentionally.

[MrAlex94]

Not intended to be misleading in a way, but it is on purpose as Mozilla don’t like it when there’s mention of Firefox on the website so I make any references sparingly.

[embedding-shape]

Huh, interesting. Is it that you're avoiding Mozilla from some sort of retribution, preventing you from effectively working on Waterfox in case you anger them? I'm not sure it should matter too much what Mozilla thinks about other browsers comparing themselves to Firefox, it's definitely fair usage as long as you don't try to trick people into believing Mozilla is also building Waterfox / Waterfox is somehow exactly the same as Firefox.

Just adding Firefox in your comparison table really should be fine, and kind of makes me want to ask someone at Mozilla why others would be afraid of doing so.

[progbits]

Also one which doesn't add new image decoder with built-in VM that is rawdogged in C, like Safari.

Chrome and Firefox are making a very reasonable decision to wait for a memory safe decoder.

[F3nd0]

Chrome's involvement in the past few years has (until very recently) been anything but reasonable.

That said, have any of them subjected WebP or AVIF to the same strict requirements, or should we reserve those only for less complex codecs actually designed with images in mind?