News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The case against JPEG XL. Parent comment

Re:The case against JPEG XL by alwillis on Sunday September 13, 2026 @10:23PM (#49691127)
> I would argue that even if JPEG XL isn't the best choice for Web images, if browsers don't support it then that will widely hinder its adoption for its non-Web use cases.

Both Firefox and Chrome [1] have committed to shipping JPEG XL later this year. Safari has supported JPEG XL since 2023, though their implementation doesn't support progressive images yet.

So the major web browsers will support JPEG XL later this fall.

[1]: "Intent to Ship: JPEG XL" - https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The case against JPEG XL by account42 on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:31AM (#49694141)
> though their implementation doesn't support progressive images yet

It doesn't support progressive images or it doesn't support progressive decoding of images?

The former would be a massive compatibility issue, the latter would only be a quality of implementation issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The case against JPEG XL by jaffathecake on Monday September 14, 2026 @05:57AM (#49694354)
In terms of AVIF, only Chrome supports progressive decoding. In terms of JPEG XL, Firefox and Chrome support progressive decoding, Safari does not.

In all cases, the browsers are able to render the final image, they just don't show the intermediate stages.

[ Parent | on HN ]