PDF.js VS parcel

Looks like you're on Mac: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/text-recognition

There's also a chance your scanner's OCR function was recently enabled by default. The feature is still sitting as "planned for the future" in their PDF library: https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/issues/15843

readPdf: used for reading the dropped file and displaying it on the screen, it uses PDF.js to load the file, get all fields and display it on the browser.

I first started building the app in the browser, using PDF.js and Download.js to take a PDF and edit it, and then download it to your computer.

pdf2json is a module that transforms PDF files from binary to JSON format, using pdf.js for its core functionality. It also incorporates support for interactive form elements, enhancing its utility in processing and interpreting PDF content.

Why not PDF.js?

I'd think opening a PDF in your browser would be at the same risk-level you associate with going to any random URL. On Firefox at least, I'm pretty sure the built-in PDF viewer is simply JS parsing and rendering the PDF anyway -- nothing with elevated permissions:

https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/

The PDF features are actually an extension, just one built in as Firefox's default pdf viewer.

It's called pdf.js https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/

You can actually use this pdf viewer in another browser like Chrome if you'd like, there's a demo URL on there.

We use Mozilla's PDF.js via the pdfjs-dist NPM module to load pages from a PDF file. The loadPdfPages function reads the PDF file and extracts its content. It returns an array where each object contains the page number and the text of that page.

The problem is that there simply wasn't a better option at the time.

Ogg Vorbis was a novelty at best, and it was the only decently widely adopted open source competitor for any of the items listed that was available at the time.

HTML5 was only just published when Chrome launched. So Flash was at that point the only option available to show a video in the browser (sure, downloading a RealPlayer file was always an option, but it was clunky, creators didn't like people being able to save stuff locally, and was also not open source). Chrome in fact arguably accelerated the process of getting web video open sourced: Google bought On2 in 2010 to get the rights to VP8 (the only decent H.264 competitor available at that point) so they could immediately open source it. The plan was in fact to remove H.264 from Chrome entirely once VP8/VP9 adoption ramped up[1], but that didn’t end up happening.

Flash was integrated into Chrome because people were going to use it anyway, and having Google distribute it at least let them both sandbox it and roll out automatic updates (a massive vector for malware at the time was ads pretending to be Flash updates, which worked because people were just that used to constant Flash security patches, most of which required a full reboot to apply; Chrome fixed both of those issues). Apple are the ones who ultimately dealt the death blow to Flash, and it was really just because Adobe could not optimize it for phone CPUs no matter what they tried (even the few Android releases of Flash that we got were practically unusable). That also further accelerated the adoption of open source HTML5 technologies.

PDF is an open source format, and has been since 2008. While I don't know if pressure from Google is what did it, that wouldn’t surprise me. Regardless, the Chrome PDF reader, PDFium, is open source[2] and Mozilla's equivalent project from 2011, PDF.js, is also open source.[3] Both of these projects replaced the distinctly closed source Adobe Reader plugin that was formerly mandatory for viewing PDFs in the browser.

Chrome is directly responsible for eliminating a lot of proprietary software from mainstream use and replacing it with high-quality open source tools. While they've caused problems in other areas of browser development that are worthy of criticism, Chrome's track record when it comes to open sourcing their tech has been very good.

[1]: https://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-i...

[2]: https://github.com/chromium/pdfium

[3]: https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js

Parcel is a fast and zero-configuration web application bundler designed to simplify the build process for modern web projects. It's not limited to web applications, and it can be used to build packages targeting the browser or Node.js.

At first we wanted to just get rid of all the helper utilities. Keep only the kernel, but this would mean a loss of backward compatibility. We needed some efficient code processing instead with recomposition and tree-shaking. We needed a bundler. But which one? Our testing approach relies on targets, not sources. We rebuilt the project frequently, speed was critical requirement. In essence, we chose a solution from a couple of among all available alternatives: esbuild and parcel. Esbuild won. Specifically in our case, it proved to be more productive and customizable.

It runs using Parcel, very simple and easy to setup. The app has 3 files:

Homepage: https://parceljs.org/

In the Changelog Podcast episode referenced above, Dan Abramov alluded to Parcel working on RSC support as well. I couldn’t find much to back up that claim aside from a GitHub issue discussing directives and a social media post by Devon Govett (creator of Parcel), so I can’t say for sure if Parcel is currently a viable option for developing with RSCs.

Parcel 2 emphasizes a zero-configuration approach to bundling web applications. It's a powerful tool that offers a hassle-free developer experience, focusing on simplicity and speed.

Once you build a simple Vite backend integration, try not to complicate Vite's configuration unless you absolutely must. Vite has become one of the most popular bundlers in the frontend space, but it wasn't the first and it certainly won't be the last. In my 7 years of building for the web, I've used Grunt, Gulp, Webpack, esbuild, and Parcel. Snowpack and Rome came-and-went before I ever had a chance to try them. Bun is vying for the spot of The New Hotness in bundling, Rome has been forked into Biome, and Vercel is building a Rust-based Webpack alternative.

Parcel

I’ve tried something similar on the frontend side: I decided to build a UI for Ollama.ai using only HTML, CSS, and JS (Single-Page Application). The goal is to learn something new and have zero runtime dependencies on other projects and NPM modules. Only Node and Parcel.js (https://parceljs.org/) are needed during development for serving files, bundling, etc. The only runtime dependency is a modern browser.

Here's what I have found so far:

- JavaScript (vanilla) is a viable alternative to React.js

Besides Webpack, there are many other popular web bundlers available, such as Parcel, Esbuild, Rollup, and more. They all have their own unique features and strengths, and you should make your decision based on the needs and requirements of your specific project. Please refer to their official websites for details.