web-codecs VS standards-positions

Encoding alpha, please! https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/672

From developer.mozilla.org [0]

> WebCodecs API

> The WebCodecs API gives web developers low-level access to the individual frames of a video stream and chunks of audio. It is useful for web applications that require full control over the way media is processed. For example, video or audio editors, and video conferencing.

And from w3c [1]:

> The WebCodecs API allows web applications to encode and decode audio and video

All this looks really promising, I wouldn't have thought that we could use browsers directly to render videos. Maybe Puppeteer could then stream the content of the page it is rendering, for example a three.js animation.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebCodecs_A...

[1] https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs

As I understand it, Web Codecs is quite a ways away from being a web standard - it is currently just a draft[1] for a recommendation for a possible future standard.

Just beware of any major API changes or any indication that it might be dropped in its entirety!

[1]:https://w3c.github.io/webcodecs/

WebCodecs has Mozilla and Microsoft coauthors: https://w3c.github.io/webcodecs/

WebGPU was chartered in 2017, with more Apple people in the initial membership than Mozilla or Google people: https://gpuweb.github.io/admin/cg-charter.html

Google specifically has approached Apple for input about scheduler.postTask(), and they say they've presented the proposal before at a working group that Apple is part of: https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-June/0319...

I won't disagree that there's a ton that can be improved about the process, but it seems pretty unsubstantiated to claim that Google is "rushing forwards as fast as possible" given that they've been spending years working on these APIs in public. You can see from the rest of the post that they're running some experiments which they're specifically choosing not to enable by default, though they could.

I work for PaperlessPost.com, and for our Flyer product we export mp4s from ffmpeg compiled to WASM, which is similar to ffmpeg.js but optimized for our use case which sounds similar. We have this WebAssembly method working well but iOS 15 (and the other major browsers) now support MediaExporter which might be a better way to go if you have something else to convert these files. This becomes and issue because you can't control the format MediaRecorder is recording to but the management of memory, the image quality, the compression, the performance hit will be more ideal than these other methods. OMGgif is very slow and will produce large files or very bad looking ones. Keep in mind that GIFs limit the colors so something that looks nice on the screen might not look the same after it is saved. The other thing to look out for is the WebCodecs APIs which should be the ultimate way to handle all of this in the future but it is only working in Chrome I think https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs

While in theory it might be possible to run ffmpeg through emscripten and run it in a web worker (I certainly assume someone has done this), it's not necessarily practical to try and use the same technique from node to transcode audio on the web. The good news is that the w3c has chartered a working group to focus on web codecs. While this is at the time of writing still in early stages, the working group is powering ahead on designing and proposing an API to enable media transcoding on the web, and hopefully that will become available to us in the near future.

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-...

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.