> AVIF is still a candidate for a universal, good, non-patent-encumbered open image encoding standard.

Yes, which is why it'd be appropriate by others to remove it as a retaliation which would make JPEG continue its defacto status.

And I've repeated it again and again it is an hypothetical scenario and I'm aware we're unfortunately not the reality we're living in, so I'm not sure what you're gaining from still arguing with me. You should've read my first comment as if it's old man yelling at clouds and move on.

Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG as the ubiquitous standard than to replace it with a technically superior but equally open alternative? I'm not understanding what you want, or who you think gains something by shooting down the best candidate to replace JPEG.

> Why is it a better situation to continue with JPEG

As a retaliation. Retaliation isn't supposed to be a good thing or move things forward. It is supposed to be a calculated action against your opponent. In this case it'd mean "if Google doesn't want to go with the industry standard replacement JPEG-XL route we won't be going with Webp or its descendant AVIF and instead and keep the JPEG-only statuesque."

I don't know how can I be more clear than that, so please I beg you to move on.

That's exactly what I don't understand I suppose. AVIF has nothing to do with Google, so I'm not sure why it's a retaliation. Dropping support for WebP and WebM would be more of a retaliation, since those are actually formats developed and pushed by Google. But Google has nothing to lose and everything to gain if other browsers kill AVIF and leave WebP as the only JPEG replacement.

But alright, I will move on. You don't have to respond.

> AVIF has nothing to do with Google,

That's where we disagree, then.