let alone normal users
> AVIF has an image resolution limit of 65536 x 65536 pixels.
but from https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/
> Max image size is limited to 4K (3840x2160) in AVIF, which is a deal breaker to me. You can tile images, but seams are visible at the edges,
> WebP also has a hard limit to an image's frame size, with its maximum dimension being 16,383 x 16,383
> WebP supports a max bit depth of 8-bit
> AVIF flexes a max bit depth of 10
Jpeg XL has progressive rendering support https://opensource.googleblog.com/2021/09/using-saliency-in-...
AVIF spec doesn't (although it might gain it: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=122171...)
JPEG-XL manages to be more efficient than other current formats: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-how-it-started-how-its-g...
All of that while being a good all-around image format (rather than a specialized one like webp and avif): same format for web, photos, raw photos, etc. To me, this makes it the most noteworthy image format now.
It's barely maintained even on their own platforms. If they could stabilize and not break localStorage, indexdb or forms every other week, that would already be a great start before thinking of other platforms.
That is really an absurd claim. Check the webkit blog.
JPEG-XL includes features and performance that might differentiate it from other formats, but the benefits it provides are not significant enough on their own to justify the cost of adding another raster image format to the Web.
There is nothing neutral about supporting one format and not supporting another.
If it were people wouldn't be pushing for JPEG-XL.
I'm not going to repeat the advantages of JEPG-XL - plenty of posts on that already.
For some bizarre reason, Mozilla chooses to back the other format - release Firefox can display AVIF right now - while leaving JPEG-XL stuck behind a flag in a Nightly.
Safari ended up being JPEG-XL’s unlikely champion.
I kind of wished Apple would release Safari for other platforms again.