wpt
Our great sponsors
standards-positions | wpt | |
---|---|---|
178 | 20 | |
597 | 4,627 | |
2.0% | 1.1% | |
7.6 | 10.0 | |
2 months ago | 3 days ago | |
Python | HTML | |
Mozilla Public License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
standards-positions
-
iOS404
You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28
Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.
-
Show HN: DualShock calibration in the browser using WebHID
FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.
https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial
Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.
-
Tailwind CSS v4.0.0 Alpha
Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472
It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.
Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.
-
An HTML Switch Control
As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.
https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990
-
Platform issues which disadvantage Firefox compared to first-party browsers
Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100
I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.
It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.
-
What Progressive Web App (PWA) Can Do Today
This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.
Take Web Bluetooth, for example:
Mozilla:
> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth
Apple:
> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns
— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/
This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.
-
Why Are Tech Reporters Sleeping on the Biggest App Store Story?
Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...
-
Reason to Use Firefox Is Sync That Works
I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].
Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].
Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?
[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...
[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...
- Mozilla's Position on CSS Scope
-
CSS Is Fun Again
Mozilla are dragging their heels on @scope:
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/implement-css-scope-rul...
Someone who clearly didn't get it was wasting three years time "well actually"ing everything. The latest news is "it's worth prototyping". Meanwhile Chrome has released it(steam rolled?) and Safari has it in tech preview.
I question if FireFox has the resources to keep up with the pace of the modern web.
wpt
-
Show HN: Dropflow, a CSS layout engine for node or <canvas>
To reply mostly with my WPT Core Team hat off, mostly summarising the history of how we've ended up here:
A build script used by significant swaths of the test suite is almost certainly out; it turns out people like being able to edit the tests they're actually running. (We _do_ have some build scripts — but they're mostly just mechanically generating lots of similar tests.
A lot of the goal of WPT (and the HTML Test Suite, which it effectively grew out of) has been to have a test suite that browsers are actually running in CI: historically, most standards test suites haven't been particularly amenable to automation (often a lot of, or exclusively, manual tests, little concern for flakiness, etc.), and with a lot of policy choices that effectively made browser vendors choose to write tests for themselves and not add new tests to the shared test suite: if you make it notably harder to write tests for the shared test suite, most engineers at a given vendor are simply going to not bother.
As such, there's a lot of hesitancy towards anything that regresses the developer experience for browser engineers (and realistically, browser engineers, by virtue of sheer number, are the ones who are writing the most tests for web technologies).
That said, there are probably ways we could make things better: a decent number of tests for things like Grid use check-layout-th.js (e.g., https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/f763dd7d7b7ed...).
One could definitely imagine a world in which these are a test type of their own, and the test logic (in check-layout-th.js) can be rewritten in a custom test harness to do the same comparisons in an implementation without any JS support.
The other challenge for things like Taffy only targeting flexbox and grid is we're unlikely to add any easy way to distinguish tests which are testing interactions with other layout features (`position: absolute` comes to mind!).
My suggestion would probably be to start with an issue at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/issues, describing the rough constraints, and potentially with one or two possible solutions.
-
The Ladybird Browser Project
It also helps that there are tests
https://web-platform-tests.org/
-
Making Web Component properties behave closer to the platform
You can see how Mozilla tests the compliance of their built-in elements in the Gecko repository (the ok and is assertions are defined in their SimpleTest testing framework). And here's the Web Platform Tests' reflection harness, with data for each built-in element in sibling files, that almost every browser pass.
-
We're building a browser when it's supposed to be impossible
We have our own test suite (orginally derived from the test suite of Meta's Yoga layout library [0]) which consists of text fixtures that are small HTML snippets [1] and a test harness [2] that turns those into runnable tests, utilising headless chrome both to parse the HTML and to generate the assertions based on the layout that Chrome renders (so we are effectively comparing our implementation against Chrome). We currently have 686 generated tests (covering both Flexbox and CSS Grid).
We would like to utilise the Web Platform Test suite [3], however these are not in a standard format and many of the tests require JavaScript so we are not currently able to do that.
[0]: https://github.com/facebook/yoga
[1]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/test_fixtures
[2]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/scripts/gentes...
[3]: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/cs...
-
What new CSS and JavaScript features can we expect soon? Or is it all unexpected?
The metrics are based on the passing rate for the web-platform-tests (WPT) project, the automated test suite for web standards. The completion rate is categorised as either stable, or experimental. There is no definition of what experimental entails, presumably features that are behind experimental flags are included. Stable is better to go off in any case.
-
[AskJS] MSE quality resources
Depends on what you are trying to achieve. You can run WPT MSE https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/media-source and WebCodecs https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webcodecs tests manually to learn by doing.
-
Rookie question: How do I know I am making progress with my JS learning?
Manually running the tests in Web Platform Tests should keep you busy.
-
Browsers Running Old JS Engines
Not sure what you mean? I referred to Web API's, which generally means Web platform API's; that is Web platform API's tested by Web Platform Tests https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.
-
State of CSS
If you want CSS to be the same across browsers then help implement CSS tests and file bugs
https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html
https://web-platform-tests.org/
better specs are great, but tests will actually find the edge cases and lead to more convergence.
-
How do I go about learning advanced DOM manipulation with vanilla JS?
Run all these tests locally https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/dom.
What are some alternatives?
webcontainer-core - Dev environments. In your web app.
browsh - A fully-modern text-based browser, rendering to TTY and browsers
WHATWG HTML Standard - HTML Standard
firefox-ios - Firefox for iOS
linkedom - A triple-linked lists based DOM implementation.
WebKit - Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
firefox-user.js-tool - Interactive view, compare, and more for Firefox user.js (eg arkenfox/user.js) + about:config functions
Fakeflix - Not the usual clone that you can find on the web.
caniuse - Raw browser/feature support data from caniuse.com
storage-foundation-api-explainer - Explainer showcasing a new web storage API, NativeIO
ioccc - My IOCCC submissions and practice.