It's finally happening. Brings a tear to my eye.
I've been following the drama for years. This should've happened many years ago but for some reason Google was blocking it in favor of AVIF, which is worse in a number of ways.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
162 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87924 readers
3582 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Looking at the article it seems AVIF is better in almost every way except progressive rendering.
And lossless compression.
The killer feature is that JXL is better in that it can losslessly encode JPEG further, and the overwhelming majority of the legacy image files that people have are JPEG. That alone should justify its support, because there are a lot of files out in the world where the highest quality, closest to "original" quality file is stored in JPEG format. A format that allows for the further compression with zero loss of quality from those originals is really important.
And the other thing this article (and a lot of the discussion around JXL) chooses not to cover is how JXL is a good format outside of just web images. It's not just looking to replace JPG/PNG/webp. It's also looking to replace raw photography formats like DNG, TIFF, and other formats that are used for full workflows from image capture from the imaging sensor itself, from cameras to scanners to medical imaging.
If JXL succeeds at becoming the dominant raw capture format, the entire workflow of processing those raw images into exported web-friendly images will favor JXL for photography.
[...] today we posted our intent to ship JPEG XL. Chrome are also intending to ship, and given there’s already a partial implementation in Safari, the format will be supported across browsers before the end of the year.
Hoping for the best 🙏
Progressive rendering
This is really interesting. Now I wonder: would it be possible to use the same image for thumbnail and full view and instead control its display by maximum allowed transfer percentage? For example, by default, for thumbnails, all images on page are served only up to 15% of their full size, and when you click on them, the same image resumes downloading to 100% size. I mean, it's definitely possible to implement this, but it would be nice to see this widely supported without getting too hacky.
Will animated JPEG XL be supported? I like to make animated images and dislike GIF for obvious reasons, but WebP is not a perfect replacement for philosophical reasons. I am eager for more programs to support JPEG XL so I can use that format for the animations that I create.
But in my experience with WebP, some programs that claim to support that format only support static WebP images. When they encounter an animated WebP, some programs only render the first frame of that animation. Due to that experience, I am hesitant to assume that animated JPEG XL images will work just because static ones do.
If you want to test, here is an animated JPEG XL I made a while ago: https://files.catbox.moe/80ottu.jxl
It does seem to be animated when I view the file in firefox. That doesn't have to mean it works when embedded on webpages though, but I guess there's an easy way to test that :)
Do you have some experimental flag enabled or something? Neither link is working for me on LibreWolf.
Regardless, it is good to know that when Firefox supports JPEG XL, it seems to support animated ones.
EDIT: I just enabled that, and both of the above links work as expected!
~~1. Navigate to about:config~~
~~2. Search jxl~~
~~3. Toggle image.jxl.enabled to true~~
Actually, see what @mschae@discuss.mschae23.de posted below. That is likely a safer method than messing with about:config
Yes, there's an “enable JXL (JPEG XL) support” toggle in the settings (tabs and browsing → media on librewolf (which is what I use too), or in ‘firefox labs’ on normal firefox).
Animated JXL worked for me on Firefox mobile after enabling that flag in about:config
YES! finally!
I'm not too familiar with this. Is the JPEG-XL already adopted by other browsers (read: Chome)?
Not by default, but it can be enabled with chrome://flags/#enable-jxl-image-format. More on support here.
Apple's Safari supports still images in JXL.
Perhaps more notably, Apple's iPhone ProRaw supports JXL encoding for its raw sensor data. They're laying the groundwork for JXL to be a supported format from the point of capture at the camera, through all the processing to make an image for web publishing or whatever.
It's on by default in Waterfox
Kind of nice but considering half of the internet doesn't accept AVIFs or WEBP I expect that it will take another decade until it's really usable
AVIF is often unsupported, but in recent years, most sites seem to accept WebP. There was certainly a time in which most sites rejected WebP, and there are a handful of websites that still do have issues with it today, but it is certainly not "half the internet" at this point.
EDIT: Your main point is definitely true, though. It took several years to reach this level of WebP compatibility, and its still not perfect. JPEG XL compatibility adoption will unfortunately likely be just about as slow.
For anyone interested you can enable that feature now. It's just not enabled by default yet in Firefox