6 ms·

> Let's hope FireFox starts to support the File System Access API soon. File System Access considered harmful, will not be implemented: https://mozilla.github.

> Let's hope FireFox starts to support the File System Access API soon. File System Access considered harmful, will not be implemented: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ Note: in true Google fashion Chrome team implemented and released at least three different APIs all having something to do with files. Status of File System Access? "not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/ https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/ Shipped in Chrome, of course.

tomayac 4y ago
Mozilla opposes the picker methods of the File System Access API. They are fully behind the Origin Private File System part, and actually have the SQLite demo from the article running in Firefox Nightly.
geysersam 4y ago
> but Mozilla could be supportive of parts, provided this were segmented better. They seem quite positive to parts of the spec. Don't know if that's the parts relevant here or not.
redwall_hp 4y ago
Yep, Chrome is the new IE. Only instead of ActiveX and small proprietary HTML additions and EEE, it's a full coup de tat on web standards and Embrace, Extend, Control.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Isn't Safari the new IE?
  - tete 4y ago
    I think they are on phones mostly.
  - meitham 4y ago
    They are one and the same thing now, WebKit!
    - c0wb0yc0d3r 4y ago
      I can't tell if you're trying to say both Chrome and Safari use the same rendering engine, but Chrome hasn't used WebKit for nearly a decade.
      - meitham 4y ago
        You’re absolutely right! I wasn’t aware of Blink!
  - mrighele 4y ago
    They are both the new IE but at different point in time Chrome is the young IE, the one disregarding the competition and imposing their own standards. Safari is the old IE, the one that is behind other browsers in terms of standard as but that you cannot ignore because it ha too big of a market share
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      So if people abandoned Chrome and Safari for Firefox, wouldn't Firefox be the new IE? I don't remember IE being open source and community-developed like Chromium which Chrome is based off of. I use Chromium on Linux and while there are a few things to complain about, it has been a pretty positive experience overall and worked better than Firefox.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        Chromium is open source but is not community-developed.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    A great article on this, Breaking the Web Forward https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
- toyg 4y ago
  > coup de tat Coup d'état: French, "stroke (coup) over/of the State (état)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat /pedantry
lopkeny12ko 4y ago
What Mozilla/Firefox needs to understand is that end users do not care about standards purity/principles. If core functionality doesn't work in your browser, people simply aren't going to use it. This is why the web is increasingly broken on Firefox--nowadays, about 10% of the sites I visit are simply utterly broken or slow on Firefox but work fine on Chrome. Hell, even the $LARGE_CORPORATION I work at has all its developer tooling (including documentation, custom extensions, etc.) on Chrome. I've reported countless Firefox-specific issues, often due to missing API support, because no one internally tests on anything other than Chrome. You have to meet your users where they are.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  I agree. I'm developing a system which uses webapp to interact with device over USB. It works in Chrome. It's sad for me to not support Firefox but the only way is to ask user to run some binary which will open websocket on localhost to interact with USB device. This is strictly worse from security PoV. This is strictly worse from usability PoV (user have to download and install manually additional component). This introduces update hurdles (I need to develop reliable updater). So much friction and issues just because of purity stand which hurts user in the end.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > I'm developing a system which uses webapp to interact with device over USB. It works in Chrome. It's sad for me to not support Firefox As a cautionary tale: the moment Firefox shipped support for a hardware API they immediately ran into sites abusing them. Of course, Chrome doesn't even hide them behind a user prompt. https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931 https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931 (and comment) There are reasons Firefox opposes these standards. Chrome is neither your friend nor does it care for the web. Why are you so willing to give a carte blanche to a power struggle (Chrome/Web vs. Android) inside a web advertising company is beyond me.
    - vbezhenar 4y ago
      I don't know about MIDI but accessing USB requires user confirmation and you can only access a selected port.
magicalist 4y ago
You're looking for https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/ https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ is positive on it and implementation is well underway: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1748667 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1748667
- sgbeal 4y ago
  > https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ is positive on it To hopefully add a bit of clarity: indeed, that page has OPFS flagged as positive under the label "File System." Further down the page is a "File System Access" entry which is flagged negative.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  You're wrong for the API discussed in GP.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  That's why I wrote this: "in true Google fashion Chrome team implemented and released at least three different APIs all having something to do with files." :) I didn't want to dig through all of them on mobile when I was responding. Both Safari and Mozilla are open (and implement/have implemented) to Origin Private File System. Because it gives web sites an access to a file system without a chance of escaping and damaging user data. Can't remember which spec introduced it, and it doesn't really matter at this point. For the more general part of File System Access Mozilla's and Safari's positions are: nope. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 There was also Storage Foundation API but it was thankfully never shipped (it was like a third way of handling files or something),and also received negative responses: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5670244905385984 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5670244905385984

tomayac 4y ago

Mozilla opposes the picker methods of the File System Access API. They are fully behind the Origin Private File System part, and actually have the SQLite demo from the article running in Firefox Nightly.

geysersam 4y ago

> but Mozilla could be supportive of parts, provided this were segmented better. They seem quite positive to parts of the spec. Don't know if that's the parts relevant here or not.

redwall_hp 4y ago

Yep, Chrome is the new IE. Only instead of ActiveX and small proprietary HTML additions and EEE, it's a full coup de tat on web standards and Embrace, Extend, Control.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Isn't Safari the new IE?
- tete 4y ago
  I think they are on phones mostly.
- meitham 4y ago
  They are one and the same thing now, WebKit!
  - c0wb0yc0d3r 4y ago
    I can't tell if you're trying to say both Chrome and Safari use the same rendering engine, but Chrome hasn't used WebKit for nearly a decade.
    - meitham 4y ago
      You’re absolutely right! I wasn’t aware of Blink!
- mrighele 4y ago
  They are both the new IE but at different point in time Chrome is the young IE, the one disregarding the competition and imposing their own standards. Safari is the old IE, the one that is behind other browsers in terms of standard as but that you cannot ignore because it ha too big of a market share
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    So if people abandoned Chrome and Safari for Firefox, wouldn't Firefox be the new IE? I don't remember IE being open source and community-developed like Chromium which Chrome is based off of. I use Chromium on Linux and while there are a few things to complain about, it has been a pretty positive experience overall and worked better than Firefox.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      Chromium is open source but is not community-developed.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  A great article on this, Breaking the Web Forward https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
toyg 4y ago
> coup de tat Coup d'état: French, "stroke (coup) over/of the State (état)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat /pedantry

lopkeny12ko 4y ago

What Mozilla/Firefox needs to understand is that end users do not care about standards purity/principles. If core functionality doesn't work in your browser, people simply aren't going to use it. This is why the web is increasingly broken on Firefox--nowadays, about 10% of the sites I visit are simply utterly broken or slow on Firefox but work fine on Chrome. Hell, even the $LARGE_CORPORATION I work at has all its developer tooling (including documentation, custom extensions, etc.) on Chrome. I've reported countless Firefox-specific issues, often due to missing API support, because no one internally tests on anything other than Chrome. You have to meet your users where they are.

vbezhenar 4y ago
I agree. I'm developing a system which uses webapp to interact with device over USB. It works in Chrome. It's sad for me to not support Firefox but the only way is to ask user to run some binary which will open websocket on localhost to interact with USB device. This is strictly worse from security PoV. This is strictly worse from usability PoV (user have to download and install manually additional component). This introduces update hurdles (I need to develop reliable updater). So much friction and issues just because of purity stand which hurts user in the end.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > I'm developing a system which uses webapp to interact with device over USB. It works in Chrome. It's sad for me to not support Firefox As a cautionary tale: the moment Firefox shipped support for a hardware API they immediately ran into sites abusing them. Of course, Chrome doesn't even hide them behind a user prompt. https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931 https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931 (and comment) There are reasons Firefox opposes these standards. Chrome is neither your friend nor does it care for the web. Why are you so willing to give a carte blanche to a power struggle (Chrome/Web vs. Android) inside a web advertising company is beyond me.
  - vbezhenar 4y ago
    I don't know about MIDI but accessing USB requires user confirmation and you can only access a selected port.

magicalist 4y ago

You're looking for https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/ https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ is positive on it and implementation is well underway: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1748667 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1748667

sgbeal 4y ago
> https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ is positive on it To hopefully add a bit of clarity: indeed, that page has OPFS flagged as positive under the label "File System." Further down the page is a "File System Access" entry which is flagged negative.
whimsicalism 4y ago
You're wrong for the API discussed in GP.
dmitriid 4y ago
That's why I wrote this: "in true Google fashion Chrome team implemented and released at least three different APIs all having something to do with files." :) I didn't want to dig through all of them on mobile when I was responding. Both Safari and Mozilla are open (and implement/have implemented) to Origin Private File System. Because it gives web sites an access to a file system without a chance of escaping and damaging user data. Can't remember which spec introduced it, and it doesn't really matter at this point. For the more general part of File System Access Mozilla's and Safari's positions are: nope. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 There was also Storage Foundation API but it was thankfully never shipped (it was like a third way of handling files or something),and also received negative responses: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5670244905385984 https://chromestatus.com/feature/5670244905385984