Comment by JyrkiAlakuijala

* [...] monetary or hardware costs.

We could perhaps create a GoFundMe page for making it cost neutral for Chrome's partners. Perhaps some industry partners would chime in.

* Does JPEG XL work best for the web?

Yes.

* What is JPEG XL compression performance across a broad range of images?

All of them. The more difficult it is to compress, the better JPEG XL is. It is at its best at natural images with noisy textures.

* Is the decoder fast?

Yes. See blog post.

* Does it render small images fast?

Yes. I don't have a link, but I tried it.

* Is encoding fast?

Yes. See blog post.

* Hardware support keeping encoding costs reasonable for large users.

https://www.shikino.co.jp/eng/ is building it based on libjxl-tiny.

* Do we need it at all or just optimize existing formats to meet new use-cases?

Jpegli is great. JPEG XL allows for 35 % more. It creates wealth of a few hundred billion in comparison to jpegli, in users' waiting times. So, it's a yes.

* Do other browsers and OSes support JPEG XL?

Possibly. iOS and Safari support. DNG supports. Windows and some androids don't support.

* Can it be done sufficiently well with WASM?

Wasm creates additional complexity, adds to load times, and possibly to computation times too.

Some more work is needed before all of Chrome's questions can be answered.