3 ms·

I must admit I've heard of this format, but it seems good... Although I do wonder how much value this would add for most sites. WEBP is pretty good and well su

by kypro 4y ago

I must admit I've heard of this format, but it seems good... Although I do wonder how much value this would add for most sites. WEBP is pretty good and well supported today. Plus internet speeds are fast enough now that images tend to be much lighter than all the various tracking libraries and frontend frameworks that the browser needs to load anyway. Unless you run a very image heavy site the performance impact here would probably be negligible over WEBP and in many cases it might not even be worth the dev effort to switch to JPEG XL even if you're still using JPG. That's not to say I think it should be removed, but just an acknowledgment that there's probably point of dismissing return here in which it doesn't make sense to support a slightly better image format, because the effort to support it exceeds the negligible benefits.

jcupitt 4y ago
It's actually the other way around: WebP images are about the same size as JPEG encoded with mozjpeg -- compression is no better. WebP does have advantages for images with transparency. Google effectively abandoned webp more than five years ago now and began work on webp2. But they've now abandoned that as well. JXL, AVIF and HEIC use next-gen compressors and are about half the size of JPEG and WebP at the same quality. HEIC has a range of terrible patent problems, so the current choice is AVIF vs JXL. AVIF has wider industry support and is likely to get hardware decode. JXL is technically more interesting and more flexible, and far better CPU encode/decode performance.