Most of the code in WebP and AVIF is shared with VP8/AV1, which means if your browser supports contemporary video codecs then it also gets pretty good lossy image codecs for free. JPEG-XL is a separate codebase, so it's far more effort to implement and merely providing better compression might not be worth it absent other considerations. The continued widespread use of JPEG is evidence that many web publishers don't care that much about squeezing out a few bytes.

Also from a security perspective the reference implementation of JPEG-XL isn't great. It's over a hundred kLoC of C++, and given the public support for memory safety by both Google and Mozilla it would be extremely embarrassing if a security vulnerability in libjxl lead to a zero-click zero-day in either Chrome or Firefox.

The timing is probably a sign that Chrome considers the Rust implementation of JPEG-XL to be mature enough (or at least heading in that direction) to start kicking the tires.

JPEG XL has progressive decoding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UphN1_7nP8U

Google created webp and that is why they are giving it unjustified preferential treatment and has been trying to unreasonably force it down the throat of the internet.

It was an issue with the main JPEGXL library being unmaintained and possibly open for security flaws. Some people got together and wrote a new one in Rust which then became an acceptable choice for a secure browser.

JpegXL and AVIF are comparable formats. Google argued you only needed one, and each additional format is a security vulnerability.

- avif is better at low bpp (low-quality images), terrible in lossless

- jxl is better at high bpp, best in lossless mode