Mostly off topic, but why is the spec for JPEG and JPEG XL paywalled? I wouldn't call them open standards if they're not available free-of-charge to the public.
I just don't get why an image format needs the ceremony from being an international standard accepted by governments. It's just an image format; governments shouldn't be involved in this at all.
What did ISO give the JPEG XL team that made paywalling the standard worth it? Did ISO pay them or something?
I think you got it the other way around. It is JPEG XL has to pay for it to be published by ISO and certified. And the document will be edited and audited in part.
And in turns government choose format that is protected and safest to use. ISO is ( or was ) part of that equation.
It's an open standard because the concepts and reference implementation are free and open source even if the PDF is paywalled. Realistically you could just pirate the PDF and write a jpeg xl encoder/decoder and your code wouldn't be infringing on any patents.
Splitting hairs on terminology I guess. Very few people are interested in the PDF that specifies the format vs being able to include decoders in software and on devices without paying a royalty for every device. There are alternative documents and the last draft copy which are free legally. As well as the reference code.
Before the world of internet, Open does not always mean free. They are two different concept. A proprietary codec isn't open, and you can't use it everywhere unless the owner allows you to or provided tools and support. Microsoft with their WMV and Realmedia with RVMB for example. H.263 and H.264 was called an open standard at the time, any body can buy and implement it.
The JPEG XL team released a draft to try to work around this but couldn't avoid it for the official standard release.