If you want to wait for W3C to approve a new codec, good luck with that. Looking at https://www.w3.org/Graphics/ https://www.w3.org/Graphics/, I see only PNG, J

If you want to wait for W3C to approve a new codec, good luck with that. Looking at https://www.w3.org/Graphics/ https://www.w3.org/Graphics/, I see only PNG, JPEG, GIF and SVG mentioned. For adding WebP and AVIF to Chrome this was not an issue. Regarding Mozilla: there is preliminary JXL support in Firefox, also behind a flag. So if Chrome would enable it, Firefox would likely follow quickly. But given their respective market shares, it is not surprising to me that Firefox does not have the audacity to push JXL when Chrome devs are clearly trying to block it. As for Apple/Safari: there is JXL support in WebKit behind a compile flag, so if Chrome would enable, they could also follow quickly. It does not surprise me that Apple is not taking any public position on this — they rarely announce their plans before they are ready to ship. In any case, if the list of supporters in that bugtracker is considered "insufficient", then I think Chrome devs have unreasonably high expectations. The issue is not that "the ecosystem" is not interested. The issue is that the Chrome decision makers don't want it to get traction, for whatever reasons they clearly don't really want to disclose but that can be guessed: The key Chrome decision maker on codec related things seems to be this person: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimbankoski/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimbankoski/ This is the same person that was also heavily involved in VP8/WebP and AV1/AVIF: https://research.google/people/105284/ https://research.google/people/105284/ To me this looks like a rather obvious conflict of interest.