> "But instead this was just another development thread Google single-handedly stopped out of nothing but ego?"<p>There's a reasonable cost/benefit argument against standardizing JPEG XL in browsers. You don't have to agree with it, but JPEG XL proponents shouldn't just ignore it.<p>The argument is: (1) the cost is large -- implementation and maintenance of a complex image codec takes time, and image codecs are high-risk from a security perspective. (2) the benefit is relatively small -- it needs to provide a clear advantage over existing alternatives like jpg, png, webp, avif in some significant general use cases.<p>Now, you don't have to agree with that argument -- e.g. you can argue the cost isn't that high, or that there are valuable advantages to jxl for significant use cases that aren't covered by existing alternative.<p>But you do need to engage that argument.<p>Otherwise what else do you have? Popular demand isn't going to work, because you're in a chicken-and-egg situation. I suppose you can try to bribe and/or bully key decision makers for all the major browsers, though I hope that wouldn't work.