I think JPEG XL's naming was unfortunate. People want to associate new image formats with leanness, lightness, efficiency.

There was a constraint - since 2009, the Joint Photographic Experts Group had published JPEG XR, JPEG XT and JPEG XS, and they were probably reluctant to break that naming scheme.

They're running out of good options, but I hope they stick with it long enough to release "JPEG XP" :-)

Considering "jpeg" has become the shorthand for "digital picture", it would be a shame not to capitalise on it.

It seems to me this point of discussion always tends to get way too much focus. Should it really raise concern?

Of all the people who interact with image formats in some way, how many do even know what an image format is? How many even notice they’ve got different names? How many even give them any consideration? And out of those, how many are immediately going to think JPEG XL must be big, heavy and inefficient? And out of those, how many are going to stop there without considering that maybe the new image format could actually be pretty good? Sure, there might be some, but I really don’t think it’s a fraction of a significant size.

Moreover, how many people in said fraction are going to remember the name (and thus perhaps the format) far more easily by remembering it’s got such a stupid name?

I found it unfortunate because it's not a JPEG.

Just call it JXL.

Crappy as a .jpg, only bigger.

Actually, I remember when JPEG XL came out, and I just thought: cool, file that one away for when I have a really big image I need to display. Which turned out to be never.

Names have consequences.

And yet WEBP decided to associate itself with urine, which google then forced on everyone using their monopoly power.

μJPEG

JPEG 15 Pro Max

Nobody can keep you from forking the spec and calling yours JPEG SM.

Do you have anything to back this up?