fs VS construct-stylesheets

> OPFS doesn’t come with graceful handling of concurrency out of the box. Developers should be aware of this and design around it.

There's a multiple readers and writers proposal [0]. It's been "position: positive" by Firefox [1], implemented in Chrome [2], and ignored by Webkit [3] (of course).

    0: https://github.com/whatwg/fs/blob/main/proposals/MultipleReadersWriters.md

You can use File System Standard https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/ to write data for that origin (Firefox doesn't implement File System Access API, nonetheless a File object can still be written to local disk using File API).

Both Firefox and Chromium (Chrome) have implemented WHATWG File System Standard.

Can you just slow down for a moment and focus on what you said?

> We're literally in the discussion about File System API that is:

> - not on any standards track

As others have pointed out the standard is here:

https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/

> - considered harmful by other browser vendors

It is literally being drafted in conjunction by all the major browsers.

> - shipped by default in Chrome

So what? I for one am thankful that Chromium enables features earlier than other browsers. If you don't want the Chromium implementation then don't use it.

Score another point for memfs, the in-memory node.js fe impl.

WHATWG recently took up File System Access spec as their FS spec. It both looks semi promising, but they seem to only care about & are only building specs for specifically emscripten wasm users. Only sync apis, only usable from dedicated workers... there's some hopes for more latter but feels super weird to see the web finally get fs access & have it be fast... but for it to be extremely odd shaped hand tailored to a very narrow class of use.

https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/

> 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.

> 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...