jpeg-xl VS jxl.js

shit i did not know that.. does it also work well with wordpress etc? because the only downfall of avif is bunch of extra steps on a nginx to get it to work right.. Also, u/LITUATUI 's comment, do i just change avif to jpeg-xl? i found something but didnt fully finish reading yet https://github.com/ImageMagick/jpeg-xl

One of the most interesting things to me is that JPEG-XL is under an open Patent License, unlike the original JPEG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL

Also, Google contributed quite a bit to it's development. As the patent grants show:

https://github.com/ImageMagick/jpeg-xl/blob/main/PATENTS

https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/blob/main/PATENTS

Microsoft seemed to have gotten a patent on part of it's implementation (which Google also tried to get). Not sure if Google will pay to invalidate that patent, but I have a feeling they are more likely to defend AVIF.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/microsoft_ans_patent/

Google's control is a little concerning, but I do feel there are bigger fish to fry then choosing between two free formats. Like H.264 and H.265 patents.

> It's so frustrating how the chromium team is ending up as a gatekeeper of the Internet by pick and choosing what gets developed or not.

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js is based on Chromium tech (Squoosh from GoogleChromeLabs) and provides an opportunity to use JXL with no practical way for Chromium folks to intervene.

Even if that's a suboptimal solution, JXL's benefits supposedly should outweight the cost of integrating that, and yet I haven't seen actual JXL users running to that in droves.

So JXL might not be a good support for your theory: where people could do they still don't. Maybe the format isn't actually that important, it's just a popular meme to rehash.

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js a javascript polyfill taken from the main page https://jpegxl.info/

There are other decoders [0] written in a "safe language" (rust) listed as well. So no there are many "safe" implementations

[0] https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide

> If you care about JXL, and only want to support JXL, and you put a JXL in your picture tag, then the browser still won't render it, even if you use a picture tag.

Is this true if you provide a polyfill? Have you tried it and it failed? (Serious question.)

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

All of the people here who are so passionate about JPEG-XL will be happy to learn that there's nothing preventing them from using it on their sites right now:

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

If you want Chrome to ship with JPEG-XL support, use it. At some point, browser makers will decide it's worth the cost to them and all users to add it.

> Please be aware that some images may not load on this page unless your browser supports JPEG-XL

The site could provide a WebAssembly decoder to make the JPEG-XL images work for everyone.

For example, here's a WebAssembly decoder: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

Demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/

at this point, I'd consider just using a polyfill library to decode jpegxl data client-side, like JXL https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

:) There are some wasm vs native benchmarks in the context of JPEG XL (for example https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js#benchmark)

For adding JPEG XL support I went with jxl.js which I modified for my use case. After looking through the main file, which is also called jxl.js, I decided I only needed 2 relevant code blocks. The one to decode the image and the one to turn the ImageData into something I could display in my existing codebase (which I already partially had implemented for another use case).

It's easy - you'll get ReferenceError: SharedArrayBuffer is not defined when the COOP and COEP headers are not set. Multithreading is enabled by default if you use the scripts from multithread folder. If only SIMD is supported, it is being used. Oh, and progressive decoding is also enabled by default.