Repository navigation
JPEG XL image format #994
Description
Description
https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features-explorer/features/jpegxl/:
The JPEG XL image format is a raster graphics file format that supports animation, alpha transparency, and lossy as well as lossless compression.
Same as the last years, see #700, #430 and #176.
Specification
https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/documentation.html; ISO/IEC 18181
web-feature
https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features-explorer/features/jpegxl/
Test Links
https://wpt.fyi/results/jpegxl
Additional Signals
- https://caniuse.com/jpegxl
SupportedPartially supported by Safari- Firefox
- JPEG XL mozilla/standards-positions#522
- with recent addition Firefox will consider a Rust implementation of JPEG-XL mozilla/standards-positions#1064
- recent activity, e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 (opened 2 days ago)
- Chrome: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5188299478007808
- WPT Tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/jpegxl
Reacted by Aslak Raanes, Dasa Paddock, Andreu Botella, Alistair Shepherd, Dan Krecichwost, Kanashimia, Max “Goldstein” Siling, Nilesh Prajapati, tgt, Ģirts and 490 more
Reacted by Oliver Williams
Reacted by Adblockalyptic, Adpocalyptic , Lego, eduardobragaxz, DutchO7, Philipp, Jarek Duda, Adrià Arrufat, Demez, Alexander and 25 more
Reacted by Adblockalyptic, Adpocalyptic , Lego, eduardobragaxz, DutchO7, Autumn Ives, Jarek Duda, penyuan, Adrià Arrufat, Demez and 47 more
Reacted by Jayden Pearse, Stephan Hegemann, 190n, See Tow, Max Hoffmann, Kieran Pilkington, Vojtěch Křižan, Adblockalyptic, Adpocalyptic , Lego and 66 more
Reacted by Jayden Pearse, Stephan Hegemann, 190n, See Tow, Max Hoffmann, Kieran Pilkington, Vojtěch Křižan, Adblockalyptic, Adpocalyptic , Lego and 61 more
Reacted by Jayden Pearse, Kenta Moriuchi, 190n, See Tow, Kieran Pilkington, Vojtěch Křižan, Adblockalyptic, Adpocalyptic , Lego, eduardobragaxz and 43 more
Activity
github-actions commentedon Sep 4, 2025
This comment was automatically generated based on the information you provided. Please don't edit it.
Below is additional information about the web feature (from the web-features project) which is referenced in your proposal.
If this doesn't accurately correspond to your proposal, please update your initial comment to include
web-features: <feature-id>.To find feature IDs, use the web-features explorer.
Feature JPEG XL
EwoutH commentedon Sep 15, 2025
Might be interesting to mention the paper, published in June: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05987
Long overdue, let’s see if it makes it this year.
Adpocalyptic commentedon Sep 15, 2025
3rd time lucky? It'd be pretty odd if they're still dropping it with the sustained user support/response every time it is put forth vs other proposals, and it still getting support added even now in all sorts despite this pulling it back. (Like that recent DICOM Medical imaging announcments with Philips for example or alternative applications in scientific scans)
but the wide range in all the use cases has already been hashed out and I don't need to write another essay here. Here's hoping it gets picked up. On Mobile Image Apps & Mobile Browsers/WebView aswell. The Jxl-Oxide stuff is noteworthy though, forgot to add that here
Edit: I also hear Google's Chrome/Chromium Teams have responded positively after PDF Association announced it's bringing in compatibility/support for JPG-XL too 🍿👀
legowerewolf commentedon Sep 15, 2025
For reference, Firefox is waiting on the libjxl/jxl-rs library to be performant.
Dmole commentedon Sep 22, 2025
Adpocalyptic commentedon Sep 22, 2025
it even has fallback compatibility where needed
I'm sure someone else could go into more depth on the points I made and talk about how other things like specific implementation (such as Jxl-Oxide) could be different but end of the day, if you really like WebP for your specific usecase then go for it, but there has been a ton of feedback to not block JPG-XL as an option by default and allow it to work automatically for when they'd need that flexibility more (to send a different format) and want their friends/recipients to not just see a blank file instead of image.
Which the arguments in the past about adoption seem to fail to address. Hiding old implementations (that were known to be an outlier vs patched update) behind a flag in a canary/nightly build isn’t really a fair test.
Also you say it’ll ‘crash the web’ but issues such as crashes would be a problem of the browser not implementing properly or a fault with the device. Again though, you can see what I said about fallbacks. Which if you can’t handle doing it at any decent speed then you can just see a compatible version like the jpeg. Though your wording throughout does seem to make me think you’re just being facetious instead of asking a question in good faith.
Adpocalyptic commentedon Sep 22, 2025
jgraham commentedon Sep 22, 2025
This is not the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.
Whilst people are free to present information that might affect the prioritization of different Interop proposals, this repository isn't intended for debates. Please avoid making unsubstantiated claims, or engaging with others that you disagree with.
jyrkialakuijala commentedon Sep 23, 2025
Google's JPEG XL developer team is ready to provide support for development work needed to facilitate its highest quality integration, e.g., browser integration work, including HDR, color management and progression.
EwoutH commentedon Sep 26, 2025
@jyrkialakuijala That's awesome! Do you know what the current stance of the Google Chromium team is?
penyuan commentedon Sep 26, 2025
@legowerewolf: For easier reference in this thread, is there a link to where the Firefox team has said that they're waiting on libjxl/jxl-rs??
jonnyawsom3 commentedon Sep 26, 2025
@penyuan mozilla/standards-positions#1064
jyrkialakuijala commentedon Sep 27, 2025
@EwoutH The Google Chromium team will manage communication regarding their stance.
30 remaining items
conradsrc commentedon Nov 3, 2025
Yep, I'll copy-and-paste this context I wrote for the JPEG-XL ticket on the Chromium issue tracker:
That's from Peter Wyatt, the Chief Technical Officer of the PDF Association, ISO Project Leader of the core PDF standard and co-chair of a few of their Technical Working Groups (TWGs), including the Image Modeling TWG that presumably made this decision. He co-chairs this working group with Leonard Rosenthol:
Doesn't get much more official than that, and I don't expect PDF's to disappear any time soon.
AccessViolation95 commentedon Nov 21, 2025
The Chrome Area Tech Leads just announced that they would welcome contributions to integrate and maintain a JPEG XL decoder in Chromium
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/WjCKcBw219k/m/NmOyvMCCBAAJ
jonnyawsom3 commentedon Dec 3, 2025
Considering the hundreds of upvotes the interop issues have gotten the past few years, I'd also like to raise awareness about the issue for developer signals.
web-platform-dx/developer-signals#215
Currently it stands at only 40 votes, so if you're a developer and want to show your support on the 'dashboard' of browser support, please give it a vote or leave a comment similar to what we do here.
As always, stay respectful and on-topic. It's been great news about Chrome and Firefox, but there's still a lot of work to do before we can take full advantage of the format on the web.
jyrkialakuijala commentedon Jan 29, 2026
JPEG XL Rust decoder (jxl-rs) has been recently integrated to Firefox and Chrome (behind a flag).
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7184969
Adpocalyptic commentedon Feb 6, 2026
More movement in browsers, we've already said DICOM, medical imaging +PDF Association though, and potentially web platforms too, like Wikimedia/Commons, considering it's getting support at the OS level in Windows alongside all this. I'd say JPG-XL is the perfect candidate to try help cement support for and fix issues in. The ball is rolling
wpt-interop commentedon Feb 12, 2026
Thank you for proposing JPEG XL image format for Interop 2026.
We are pleased to let you know that it has been accepted as part of the JPEG XL investigation.
You’ll be able to track progress on this topic throughout the year via the Interop 2026 dashboard.
Posted on behalf of the Interop team.
Adpocalyptic commentedon Feb 12, 2026
@wpt-interop Investigation? Does that mean it still might not fully be a focus area & worked on for Safari, Firefox, Chromium-Based products like previous years? :/
foolip commentedon Feb 12, 2026
Hey all, to clarify what "investigation" means, you'll see that JPEG XL on the dashboard links to https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-jpegxl. That means that we will work to improve the test coverage for JPEG XL in browsers, so that we have a solid test suite to target. This is different from a focus area where each browser gets a score based on a pass rate, but it does mean that the Interop team is committing time to this.
Best-HeyGman commentedon Feb 12, 2026
Good news :)
foolip commentedon Feb 12, 2026
@Adpocalyptic JPEG XL support using the new Rust jxl-rs library has recently landed behind a flag in both Chrome and Firefox. To follow along closely I suggest following the bugs, https://crbug.com/462919304 and https://bugzil.la/1539075.