@gianni
> JXL isn't needless feature creep;...

I never said JXL is feature creep. I said the implementation of random codecs regardless of whether any are already in development is feature creep, thats a big difference.

> that's what the video-based codecs are.

How comes that implementing video-based image codecs is feature creep? Ok look, i never had something against JXL, thats your imagination playing you.
In fact, I am of the opinion that every halfway reasonable codec should be built into browsers, but only one after the other and not together in a random order for every browser.

> You're thinking from a purely web-based standpoint here.

Sure i do, the topic is literally codecs in browsers :blobcatgoogly:

> JXL would be the only promising image codec to hopefully not need to look at another one for a very long time.

I doupt it, the past has shown that new algorithms are built which are faster or make things smaller... All the time. But yes, currently JXL is a proper codec to store images.

> I can tell you right now that professional photography, medical imaging, astrophotography, etc are simply not interested in AVIF, while JXL has the features to make everyone happy across the Web and beyond

Since i like stuff to read, source please.

In my experience, codecs are used which are established in the broad masses. So here are my predictions: I have the feeling that the HEIF container will spread due to its support in common OSes, and because the operating systems do not support all codecs of the HEIF container, I think that HEIC will prevail for the time being.
But we will see