3 ms·

The problem is that they only tested it on Chrome.

by kozak 7y ago

gattilorenz 7y ago
Maybe. On the other hand, the audio tag is pretty standard and the format is standard too, and if you look at w3c support page [1] it looks like ffox supports wav files (and it does, just not all of them. And they might just have tested if the first file plays (or even the second). I would say it's a firefox "bug" instead, there's not a good reason not to support this wav format. And I say that as a Firefox user that never betrayed the fox for that shiny metallic look. [1] https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp
- londons_explore 7y ago
  Especially since firefox probably ought to be using the underlying OS libraries for media decoding (and on windows, mac, and linux all the major libraries support this format). Firefoxes "we need to invent it ourself so we aren't at the whim of the platform" has bitten them here. Also, a patch to support this format is probably only 10 lines of code... Simply a for loop over every sample converting to 16 bit PCM.
  - 05 7y ago
    Using underlying non-hardened OS libraries will open your browser to numerous exploits, see e.g. IE’s WMF vulns [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      Presumably the solution is to harden the OS rather than reinvent the wheel and leave all other applications vulnerable...
kozak 7y ago
In software development (or better say, in engineering in general), nothing ever can be presumed to be working until it is tested.
emerongi 7y ago
This is a research project at Google. I'm a Firefox fan myself, but this is on Firefox and nobody else. It should just work on Firefox; I wouldn't actually expect someone to do "testing" on a research article.
yorwba 7y ago
They might not have tested it at all. It's just a blog post after all. Plenty of blog posts get published with broken links or duplicate paragraphs and basically anything else that isn't immediately obvious at a glance. Being published on a Google domain doesn't guarantee that they have a sophisticated testing process to catch these kinds of errors even in Chrome.

The problem is that they only tested it on Chrome.

by kozak 7y ago

The problem is that they only tested it on Chrome.

Maybe. On the other hand, the audio tag is pretty standard and the format is standard too, and if you look at w3c support page [1] it looks like ffox supports wav files (and it does, just not all of them. And they might just have tested if the first file plays (or even the second). I would say it's a firefox "bug" instead, there's not a good reason not to support this wav format. And I say that as a Firefox user that never betrayed the fox for that shiny metallic look. [1] https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_audio.asp

londons_explore 7y ago
Especially since firefox probably ought to be using the underlying OS libraries for media decoding (and on windows, mac, and linux all the major libraries support this format). Firefoxes "we need to invent it ourself so we aren't at the whim of the platform" has bitten them here. Also, a patch to support this format is probably only 10 lines of code... Simply a for loop over every sample converting to 16 bit PCM.
- 05 7y ago
  Using underlying non-hardened OS libraries will open your browser to numerous exploits, see e.g. IE’s WMF vulns [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Presumably the solution is to harden the OS rather than reinvent the wheel and leave all other applications vulnerable...

kozak 7y ago

In software development (or better say, in engineering in general), nothing ever can be presumed to be working until it is tested.

emerongi 7y ago

This is a research project at Google. I'm a Firefox fan myself, but this is on Firefox and nobody else. It should just work on Firefox; I wouldn't actually expect someone to do "testing" on a research article.

yorwba 7y ago

They might not have tested it at all. It's just a blog post after all. Plenty of blog posts get published with broken links or duplicate paragraphs and basically anything else that isn't immediately obvious at a glance. Being published on a Google domain doesn't guarantee that they have a sophisticated testing process to catch these kinds of errors even in Chrome.