jxl-oxide

There's way more than one rust implementation around - https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs - https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide - https://github.com/etemesi254/zune-image Etc. You can wait for 20 or so years "just to be sure" or start doing something. Mozilla sticks to the option A here by not doing anything

I did some reading recently, for a benchmark I was setting up, to try and understand what the situation is. It seems things have started changing in the last year or so. Some links from my notes: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mozilla-Interest-JPEG-XL-Rust https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41443336 (discussion of the same GitHub comment as in the Phoronix site) https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1986393 (land initial jpegxl rust code pref disabled) In case anyone is curious, here is the benchmark I did my reading for: https://op111.net/posts/2025/10/png-and-modern-formats-lossl...

Pretty much every codec in every browser is written in an unsafe language, unfortunately. I don't see why JXL should be singled out. On the other hand, there is a JXL decoder in Rust called jxl-oxide [1] which works quite well, and has been confirmed by JPEG as conformant. Hopefully it will be adopted for decode-only usecases. [1] https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide/pull/267 > It’s absolute insanity that we write codecs — pure functions — in an unsafe language that has a compiler that defaults to “anything goes” as an optimisation technique. Rust and C++ are exactly the same in how they optimize, compilers for both assume that your code has zero UB. The difference is that Rust makes it much harder to accidentally have UB.

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

Two rust implementation projects : https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs

>The attempt to provide a second JPEG-XL implementation has stalled What do you mean by "the attempt"? There are at least three independent decoder implementations: jxl-oxide (Rust): https://github.com/tirr-c/jxl-oxide J40 (C): https://github.com/lifthrasiir/j40 jxlatte (Java): https://github.com/thebombzen/jxlatte None of them is feature complete, but it's because each of them is a hobby, single-person project. You're making it sound like some billion-dollar company tried to implement JPEG XL and failed, because it's too complex or something. However, it should be noted that those independent implementations, despite being hobby projects, helped to iron-out some minor issues in the standard. >Then AVIF got in, because AV1 was already in. AVIF uses its own container format that had to be implemented. Implementing AV1 does not give you AVI