Just be thankful it’s not “Liquid Glass”.

What they’re saying is that a web server can create a traditional jpeg file from a jpeg xl to send to a client as needed. So you’re saving backend storage space… sometimes. Until widespread adoption by browsers, you’re still creating and transmitting a traditional jpeg file. And now you’ve increased the server space needed because you’re having to create and store two copies of the file in two different formats.

Developers are already doing this with webp and everyone hates webp (if your browser doesn’t support webp, the backend sends you the jpeg copy). I dont see any advantage here except some hand waving “but in the future” just like has been done for most new formats trying to win adoption.

Its still natural gas. Getting it out of the ground is an ecological disaster.

How is it backwards compatible? Everything I’ve read so far says the opposite — That it requires recoding the image into the new format, and keeping around or generating an old copy of the image in current jpeg format for older software.

Are you saying a browser or app that currently only supports Jpeg can open and render a Jpeg-XL image?

Edit: Yeah. It’s not backward compatible. And system admins are already doing the “make two copies of an image thing with webp and the current jpg format.

Just as many people don’t give a shit about jpeg XL.

Alternate headline:

“New shiny thing distracts idiot CEO into moving funds from one money pit to another.”

Nah. It’s more ridiculous that ICANN gives out domains other than stuff like edu/com/org/gov in the first place.