file-system-access VS construct-stylesheets

You can read about the privacy concerts the community group published [1].

[1]: https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/#privacy-considera...

WHATWG File System Standard provides a means to write directories and files to the private origin storage associated with a Web page origin. If you want you can use WICG File System Access API to write data directly to your filesystem in the browser. WHATWG File System Standard uses the same FileSystemDirectoryHandle and FileSystemFileHandle defined by File System Access API.

Chromium-based browsers support File Systeam Access API.

We have stopped using the file system access API: https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/issues/401

Where file handling is concerned, there are at least

- File System Access API, https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/

- File Handling, https://github.com/WICG/file-handling/blob/master/explainer....

- Origin Private File System, https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessH...

There was also Storage Foundation API to which the reaction was "I don't think it's an acceptable outcome for the web platform to have that many ways to work with files" :) https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/481 This one never saw the light of day.

Huh. Disregard what I wrote entirely, then. Reading through https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessH..., I can see how they’ve bypassed most of the problems I saw—I was making unnecessary assumptions.

Thank you for correcting me.

> Browsers have never let anything (not even JS) have raw access to the host FS

I'm not sure what you mean by "raw access", but the File System Access API certainly allows web applications to do a lot of things.

> The File System Access API (formerly known as Native File System API and prior to that it was called Writeable Files API) enables developers to build powerful web apps that interact with files on the user's local device, like IDEs, photo and video editors, text editors, and more.

https://web.dev/file-system-access/

> After a user grants a web app access, this API allows the app to read or save changes directly to files and folders on the user’s device. Beyond reading and writing files, this API provides the ability to open a directory and enumerate its contents. Additionally, web apps can use this API to store references to files and directories they’ve been given access to, allowing the web apps to later regain access to the same content without requiring the user to select the same file again.

> Additionally this API also makes it possible for websites to get access to some directory without having to first prompt the user for access.

https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/

It's not just a draft, it's been part of Chrome since version 78 in 2019.

> After a user grants access, this API allows web apps to read or save changes directly to files and folders on the user's device. It does all this by invoking the platform's own open and save dialog boxes.

https://blog.chromium.org/2019/09/chrome-78-beta-new-houdini...

Discussion at the time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032537

In the post, the Vite webserver is only used to serve the HTML and JS static files to the browser. When the user saves or opens text files, the code uses the web File System Access API (https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/) to interact with the user file system.

Have you heard of Project Fugu and their idea of a File System Access API in the browser? https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/

I don't know a C++ equivalent of HTML , prompt(), or File System Access API (https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/; https://web.dev/file-system-access/) using JavaScript in the browser window.

> With adoptedStyleSheets they're objecting to making backwards incompatible changes

Which would not be bacwards incompatible if they hadn't shipped something that wasn't agreed on in the first place.

Again, slowly: they literally shipped that to production despite loud and explicit objecitons from both Firefox and Safari they shipped it to production. When asked to hide it back behind the flag, "but backwards incompatible change, the framework we're developing is already depending on it"

And since you're quoting rniwa, here's the relevant quote https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu...:

--- start quote ---

I feel like I’ve put so much time & energy into making this feature something sane & useful, and all you did was basically to dismiss many of my feedbacks and go with whatever you like and just ship it. And now you’re saying you can’t make changes because you shipped it?

I’m sorry but that’s just not how standards work.

--- end quote ---

> With WebMIDI they're saying they want to do an announcement before making the change.

Indeed. Once again: because they shipped an API that neither Safari nor Mozilla supported. Now that this issue has surfaced (no thanks to Chrome), they can't just roll it back or fix it because people already rely ono this behaviour, which the implicitly acknowledge.

It's not true, to w3c's surprising credit.

What Google does, is publish a "draft" which is as far from a standard as their authors are from the Moon. This gives Chrome the leeway to call it an "emerging standard" and just ship it. It doesn't care if there are objections, or that other browser vendors will not implement it. It's now a "standard" in Google's dictionary.

For something to become a W3C standard even in the present world, you need a consensus and at least two independent implementations. None of that exists for stuff Google pushes out (hardware APIs, web transport, constructible stylesheets [1], the list goes on...).

The correct name for those is Chrome-only non-standards.

[1] These one isn't even a draft. It is.... "a collection of interesting ideas" in a working group https://wicg.github.io/construct-stylesheets/ Shipped by default in Chrome, of course

I literally provided just some of the examples. Those are easily verifiable.

Web Transport is shipped by default. What was the input from other browser?

Here's the timeline for HID: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is...

Constructible Stylesheets: the spec contained a trivially reproducible race condition, the API was badly specified. Google shipped against any objections and refused to bring it back under the flag. Full discussion here: https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45. Shipped in Chrome https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu... (may be hidden on mobile) despite multiple unresolved issues. Two years later Chrome did add a better API that people originally requested, other issues potentially remain.

> If there are examples of 'Apple ignoring standards' actually meaning Chrome-only features please tell me one.

Easy.

The most obvious/glaring one is WebHID. Enjoy the timeline: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459

It's not just HID, of course. All/most of the hardware APIs are considered harmful by both Safari and Mozilla. Chrome is shipping them enabled by default, and there's no end to clueless developers maoning about this and calling Safari (mostly) and Firefox (from time to time) too slow in "moving the web forward". Needless to say that all those non-standards are pushed forward by Chrome.

The less obvious one is Constructable Stylesheets.

The spec had an obvious flaw that could lead to easily reproducible deadlocks. And that is on top with other issues with design, API naming etc. A team within Google (lit-html) wanted this feature, so Chrome shipped it against clear objections from both Safari and Firefox. And then refused to move the feature back under a flag because "0.8% of page views in Chrome" were suddenly using this feature. And proceded to gaslight other browsers' developers https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45. See e.g. a response to that https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu... Of course there's now a "looking ahead" that wants to do exactly what Safari and Mozilla wanted to do in the first place: https://web.dev/constructable-stylesheets/#looking-ahead

In general, Chrome pushes 40 to over 100 new Web APIs with each release (that is, every two months). How many of them are actual standards that had actual input from other browser developers? In how many Chrome actually listened and implemented suggestions? https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence

> The negatives are often theoretical

They are not theoretical. Too bad webapicontroversy.com has been shut down (it looked like this [1]), but you can scroll down to "defer" and "considered harmful" in Mozilla's positions here: [2]

There are more, of course, but they are not visible unless you're willing to follow thousands of issues across hundreds of GitHub repositories. One that springs to mind is, of course Constructible Stylesheets. Mozilla and Safari: the spec describes an algorithm that leads to deadlock in trivial code, we wont implement it until this is fixed. [3] Chrome: ship it, because lit-html (developed by Google) wants it and is already using it. And then procedes to gaslight people and misrepresent their positions (cant' find the relevant link, but at this point I can't find the will to dive into the cesspool).

[1] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32768/108985355-3f...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://github.com/WICG/construct-stylesheets/issues/45#issu...