Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

It's a huge piece for sure, but not the only one. For example, Firefox and Windows both don't support it out of the box currently. Firefox requires nightly or an extension, and on Windows you need to download support from the Microsoft store.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#5

Post by caminanteblanco » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:11 AM UTC

My introduction to JPEG-XL was by 2kliksphillip on YouTube, he has a few really good analyses on this topic, including this video: https://youtu.be/FlWjf8asI4Y

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#6

Post by JyrkiAlakuijala » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:12 AM UTC

free_bip wrote: post #4

mikae1 wrote: post #2

The final piece of the JPEG XL puzzle!

It's a huge piece for sure, but not the only one. For example, Firefox and Windows both don't support it out of the box currently. Firefox requires nightly or an extension, and on Windows you need to download support from the Microsoft store.

Would PDF 2.0 (which also depends JPEG XL and Brotli) put pressure on Firefox and Windows to add more easy to use support?

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#7

Post by jchw » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:16 AM UTC

JyrkiAlakuijala wrote: post #6

free_bip wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge piece for sure, but not the only one. For example, Firefox and Windows both don't support it out of the box currently. Firefox requires nightly or an extension, and on Windows you need to download support from the Microsoft store.

Would PDF 2.0 (which also depends JPEG XL and Brotli) put pressure on Firefox and Windows to add more easy to use support?

I don't think so: JPEG 2000, as far as I know, isn't generally supported for web use in web browsers, but it is supported in PDF.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#8

Post by fmajid » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:42 AM UTC

jchw wrote: post #7

JyrkiAlakuijala wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would PDF 2.0 (which also depends JPEG XL and Brotli) put pressure on Firefox and Windows to add more easy to use support?

I don't think so: JPEG 2000, as far as I know, isn't generally supported for web use in web browsers, but it is supported in PDF.

JPEG-XL is recommended as the preferred format for HDR content for PDFs, so it’s more likely to be encountered:

https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/10/another_chance_for_jp...

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#9

Post by jchw » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:46 AM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #8

jchw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so: JPEG 2000, as far as I know, isn't generally supported for web use in web browsers, but it is supported in PDF.

JPEG-XL is recommended as the preferred format for HDR content for PDFs, so it’s more likely to be encountered: https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/10/another_chance_for_jp...

What I mean to say is, I believe browsers do support JPEG 2000 in PDF, just not on the web.

Re: Google Revisits JPEG XL in Chromium After Earlier Removal

#10

Post by adzm » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:50 AM UTC

jxl-rs https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs was referenced as a possibility; what library is Safari using for jpegxl?