thumbhash VS standards-positions

You may wish to investigate cloudflare's image API: https://developers.cloudflare.com/images/cloudflare-images/

If the reason you were unable to use a CDN cache was because your access patterns require a lot of varying end serializations (due to things like image manipulation, resizing, cropping, watermarking, etc.), then this API could be a huge money saver for you. It was for me.

OTOH if the cost was because compute isn't free and the corresponding cloudflare worker compute cost is too much, then yeah, that's a tough one... I don't have a packaged answer for you, but I would investigate something like ThumbHash: https://evanw.github.io/thumbhash/ - my intuition is that you can probably serve some highly optimized/interlaced/"hashed" placeholder. The advantage of thumbhash here could be that you can optimize the access pattern to be less spendy by simply storing all of your hashes in an optimized way, since they will be extremely small, like small enough to be included in an index for index-only scans ("covering indexes").

note: I haven't had time but I would live to investigate into keeping tiny thumbnails hashes in my db as mentioned in https://evanw.github.io/thumbhash/

Check the script here: https://github.com/evanw/thumbhash/blob/main/examples/browser/index.html

While it's similar to BlurHash, the color performance is much better for the same filesize. Here's a a demonstration of this from the demo page (with ThumbHash in the middle and BlurHash on the right):

Webp took a long time to get some broader adoption but it fulfills the roll of jpeg: a decent enough quality looking picture but at a reduced file size. However, it is based on the VP8 video codec. So in other words, you can think of it as a still frame of a VP8 video. This has some disadvantages because it can only load the image line by line from top to bottom (as opposed to a kind of blurry but progressively improving picture like a slow loading jpeg). So this leads to tricks like storing a very small thumbnails version and loading the actual original image. But tricks are tricks, and they're a bit annoying to deal with. For a very advanced version of this "store a small version and load that first" check this out https://evanw.github.io/thumbhash/ (it creates a blur that has the the appearance of the photo that's loading but it can do it within bytes of data).

You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336

The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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-...