Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I am excited for this! A great practical format.
I love progressive rendering. At 15% loaded in this example it’s surprisingly good already.
by mchusma - Great outcome, and I hope the weight of mainstream browser support will spur camera and phone manufacturers to emit native JXLs from their devices.by jl6
- I'm a fan of JpegXL and happy to see support finally begin to coalesce around it on the browser scene, but I was wondering if anyone knew what goes into the decision of whether or not to consider adding encode support, e.g. via offscreenCanvas.convertToBlob() or whatever. How did browsers (minus Safari, of course) end up deciding to add support for WebP encode in addition to JPEG and PNG?by ComputerGuru
- Nice. I hope we'll see more support for jxl across the web. It's so good at this point that it's my primary output/archival format for all of my photography.by tristor
- For all the furore, I think the best outcome happened here. Both browsers used their weight to get a memory-safe implementation out, and now we can all benefit from a new file format with a significantly reduced attack surface.
- Some background on this, and demos of JPEG XL's progressive rendering: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/by jaffathecake
- And Chromium intent to Ship: JPEG XL decoding support (image/jxl) in blink
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/-gDoj...
by cpeterso