Lots of other discussion on this though: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bpg+bellard
Royalty Free.
Purely from a Web Image usage perspective, Jpeg XL is very competitive in terms of features and performance. Also Royalty free.
There are some concerns:
Non-native support requires non-static pages - even for something that will always appear to be the same, things like noscript will kill the page;
Hardware acceleration will need to be done in general terms - something like WebGPU will help, but it will still be less efficient than hardware acceleration (and that could be a problem for mobile).
Besides, do you really want to download and parse a codec for every page?
However, it does present a viable path to the introduction of new codecs independent of the bogged up process that still has us using GIF and JPEG despite the fact that they've been known for years to be shite.
Also, WASM supports a binary form, so you can skip parsing.
You're suggesting to load a whole new parser, parse images at a higher level than browsers can (i.e. slower and with less concurrency), and make `<img>` a whole lot harder to manage.
That's not worth it at all unless the savings are substantial (say BMP vs JPEG)
Performance is not a factor in this.
> Performance is not a factor in this.
If you care about SEO, it does. Check Google's pagespeed test.
edit: Case in point, except for google.com (which itself has a terrible score of 62) I can't even find out a single google service that isn't in the reds on the pagespeed index.
Even when it decided to load the mobile version.
What a completely ridiculous statement. Why else would anyone choose BGP if not for performance (i.e. download speed)? The choice to use BGP over a plain old JPG would be made specifically by people who do care.