Jake ArchibaldSep 4, 2025

Interop 2026 is now open for proposals!

This is your chance to tell browser-makers which well-defined, well-tested features you wish had better support across browsers.

⬇️ Here's how ⬇️
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/blob/main/proposal_guide.md

Note: this is only for features that are already fully designed & specified. If you have ideas for entirely new features, you can still propose those on GitHub projects related to the feature, e.g https://github.com/whatwg/html/ for HTML, and https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/ for CSS.

Show threadPaul Robert Lloyd 🐢Sep 4, 2025
@jaffathecake This is your chance to tell browser-makers which well-defined, well-tested features you wish had better support across browsers… and for them to ignore you and do what they’d already planned to do anyway 😒
Show threadJake ArchibaldSep 4, 2025
@paulrobertlloyd what do you feel was ignored last year?
Show threadpwheelerSep 5, 2025
@jaffathecake @paulrobertlloyd The Big One is JXL. Snubbed I think at least 2 times!
Show threadJake ArchibaldSep 5, 2025
@pwheeler @paulrobertlloyd my personal feelings about that is it isn't worth it vs existing formats, but it wouldn't upset me to see it implemented.
Show threadpwheeler
@jaffathecake Genuinely curious as to why you feel that way? Progressive decoding, lossy & lossless, animation, very high max res--the backwards compatibility alone is killer imo! It seems to be on-par(or better) with most "modern" formats & is more flexible/future-forward.
Sep 5, 2025 at 5:13pmIceCubesApp
Show threadJake ArchibaldSep 5, 2025

@pwheeler depends what you mean by backwards compatibility. It isn't really backwards compatible, it has a separate feature where it can repackage a JPEG to be a little smaller, but once you do that it can't be read by a JPEG decoder.

The lossy mode doesn't seem as good as AVIF. Progressive is interesting. Lossless is ok but fairly rare to need that on a web page.

Show threadpwheelerSep 5, 2025
@jaffathecake Yea I guess that's not really what backwards compatible means lol, but the conversion is lossless and it reduces space! It's maybe not outperforming every scenario, but that it's even competitive is so exciting to me. I'm thinking of it as more of a feature-rich, portable image standard and less as a technology for the web specifically.
Show threadHazel CoraSep 6, 2025
@jaffathecake @pwheeler from the admittedly little I’ve seen, the progressive loading is exciting to me to have along with better compression than JPEG and an alpha channel (I’m unaware of other actually-supported formats than JPEG with good progressive loading, would love to know of others if they exist though!), but in practice I get by with other formats just fine. It being “pulled” from Chrome (…when it was never even in Chrome except behind a flag…) did not warrant the response it got in the slightest and it’s weird that it’s still going
Show threadpwheelerSep 6, 2025
@h @jaffathecake Oh I think it did! Chrome has the highest browser share and their provided explanation for removing support(as you said, JXL had always been behind a flag) was due to "low interest/adoption", to which interested devs objected. At some point, I think someone from the team posted an egregious "case study" that was just...objectively, very poorly done. Which ofc leads to questions about bias, competing formats, etc.