jxl.js

> Why should the browser contain a specific template engine, like XSLT, and not Jinja for example? Also it can be reimplemented using JS or WASM. I think a dedicated unsupported media type -> supported media type WASM transformation interface would be good. You could use it for new image formats and the like as well. There are things like JXL.js that do this: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

> but there is one serious seemingly insurmountable obstacle It can be surmounted with WebAssembly: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js/ Single thread demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/ Multithread demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/multithread/

> It's so frustrating how the chromium team is ending up as a gatekeeper of the Internet by pick and choosing what gets developed or not. https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js is based on Chromium tech (Squoosh from GoogleChromeLabs) and provides an opportunity to use JXL with no practical way for Chromium folks to intervene. Even if that's a suboptimal solution, JXL's benefits supposedly should outweight the cost of integrating that, and yet I haven't seen actual JXL users running to that in droves. So JXL might not be a good support for your theory: where people could do they still don't. Maybe the format isn't actually that important, it's just a popular meme to rehash.

I tried jxl.js, it was very finicky on iPad, out of memory errors [0] and blurry images [1]. In the end I switched to a proxy server, that reencoded jxl images into png. [0]: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js/issues/6 [1]: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js/issues/7

Actual users, perhaps. Or maybe concern trolls paid by a patent holder who's trying to prepare the ground for a patent-based extortion scheme. Or maybe Jon Sneyers with an army of sock puppets. These "actual users" are just as real to me as Chrome's telemetry. That said: these actual users didn't demonstrate any hacker spirit or interest in using JXL in situations where they could. Where's the wide-spread use of jxl.js (https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js) to demonstrate that there are actual users desperate for native codec support? (aside: jxl.js is based on Squoosh, which is a product of GoogleChromeLabs) If JXL is sooo important, surely people would use whatever workaround they can employ, no matter if that convinces the Chrome team or not, simply because they benefit from using it, no? Instead all I see is people _not_ exercising their

https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js a javascript polyfill taken from the main page https://jpegxl.info/ There are other decoders [0] written in a "safe language" (rust) listed as well. So no there are many "safe" implementations [0] https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide

You can use WASM for image codecs, like my JPEG XL decoder: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js There is also WebCodecs API: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebCodecs_A...

My JPEG XL decoder uses WASM: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

> If you care about JXL, and only want to support JXL, and you put a JXL in your picture tag, then the browser still won't render it, even if you use a picture tag. Is this true if you provide a polyfill? Have you tried it and it failed? (Serious question.) https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

In the meantime you can use a polyfill: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

and here's one: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js

All of the people here who are so passionate about JPEG-XL will be happy to learn that there's nothing preventing them from using it on their sites right now: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js If you want Chrome to ship with JPEG-XL support, use it. At some point, browser makers will decide it's worth the incremental cost (to them and all users) to add it.

> Please be aware that some images may not load on this page unless your browser supports JPEG-XL The site could provide a WebAssembly decoder to make the JPEG-XL images work for everyone. For example, here's a WebAssembly decoder: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js Demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/

By implementing the decoder in WebAssembly. It'd be lower performance than native decoding but probably not that bad. Here's one: https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js Demo: https://niutech.github.io/jxl.js/ Libjxl's own WASM build: https://github.com/libjxl/libjxl/tree/main/tools/wasm_demo

:) There are some wasm vs native benchmarks in the context of JPEG XL (for example https://github.com/niutech/jxl.js#benchmark) Could also be interesting for you to run the vqsort benchmark: https://github.com/google/highway/blob/master/hwy/contrib/so...