While it seems JPEG XL is very nice, I think the comment 72 from Kornel Lesinski is spot on: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c72

While it seems JPEG XL is very nice, I think the comment 72 from Kornel Lesinski is spot on: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1178058#c72 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=117805... > In terms of compression performance JPEG XL is really good, but I'm concerned that it does not have more than a single implementation. > W3C's bar for web standard recommendations is having at least two independent implementations. AVIF has multiple interoperable implementations in multiple languages. JPEG XL doesn't have yet. > Given the substantial complexity and scope of the JPEG XL format, I'd like to see a proof that a second implementation is possible, and that it's interoperable, so that the Web platform doesn't end needing bug-compatibility with a single C++ codebase.