On: JPEG XL support has officially been removed from C...

[simplotek]

> Do we know why they chose to remove it?

Phoenix had an article on why Google decided to remove JPEG-XL.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reason...

The official justification seems to be a) experimental nature of JPEG-XL, b) lack of demand, c) maintenance burden.

Take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't buy it.

[mariusmg → simplotek]

>experimental nature of JPEG-XL

I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard. So if it's already standardized, how the heck is still "experimental" ?

https://www.iso.org/standard/77977.html

[JyrkiAlakuijala → mariusmg]

JPEG XL was implemented in Chrome behind a flag.

Other than that there is nothing experimental in JPEG XL.

[simplotek → mariusmg]

> I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard.

I see there's some confusion. A specification might be formalized in an international standard, but implementations of said standard can and often are experimental.

You don't magically turn code production-ready by having a committee sign off on a document.

[masklinn → mariusmg]

> I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard.

So were JPEG-XR and MJPEG2000.

[quikee → masklinn]

and neither of your examples is experimental