Does anyone have hands-on experience with how well different browsers support this? This blog post and caniuse both say Chrome support is currently somewhat limited (though being improved); caniuse also mentions that Safari (both desktop and iOS) only support the Origin Private File System part of the File System API, and that Firefox doesn't support it all. I'm curious how all that actually shakes out in practice.
The Origin Private File System is coming to all browsers, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. It's a universally agreed-on Web standard: https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/.
Just because the standard exists doesn't mean every browser has already implemented 100% of it, hence why I was asking if anyone's had any experience actually trying to use it.
EDIT: I saw from your other comments on this post that Firefox has implemented at least the origin private file system part in nightly builds; that's useful info that I was looking for.
However the sqlite demo page says OPFS is unavailable for me in Safari https://sqlite-wasm-opfs.glitch.me/ ...unsure whether it only supports a subset of the APIs that the official sqlite build uses?
What happens is that one browser (usually Chrome) implements a useful new feature. Then applications are released that use that feature. Then the other browser vendors start hearing from their users that they suck because they don't support the nice new feature and hence can't run the nice new applications. And eventually they add support.
> What happens is that one browser (usually Chrome) implements a useful new feature.
What happens is Chrome releases a Chrome-only non-standard (at a rate of 400 APIs per year). It cobbles together a barely legible spec [1], and then uses its multiple propaganda channels like web.dev to present them as actual completed standards that other browsers are just slow to implement.
Even if other browsers only learn about this a few days before Chrome ships, or have multiple objections.
That's a nice sentiment at the link. The reality is that Chrome ships hundreds of APIs with little to no input and only barely notifies other browser vendors that "yeah, we're shipping it".
We're literally in the discussion about File System API that is:
- not on any standards track
- considered harmful by other browser vendors
- shipped by default in Chrome
Edit: I can give several examples from Web Transport to HID to Constructible Stylesheets that were either shipped with no input from other vendors, or shipped against the multiple objections from other browser vendors. And that's just the ones I know about.
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.
You may believe in benevolent Google working hand in hand with others for the betterment of the web. The reality is radically different.
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.
> As others have pointed out the standard is here:
As others also pointed out, it's a different standard.
File System: Mozilla isn't opposed
File System Access API: considered harmful
There are parts (of whichever spec) that neither Mozilla nor Safari are opposed to like Private Origin File System. That one ships across all browsers.
> So what?
Ah yes. So what if a dominant browser ships features without any consensus, against objections, with badly written specs, or with glaring issues.
There was also Storage Foundation API to which the reaction was "I don't think it's an acceptable outcome for the web platform to have that many ways to work with files" :) https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/481 This one never saw the light of day.
It's a good idea, or at least originally it was a good idea. In reality it devolved to, well, see the links I provided.
Edit:
Note: those three are the ones I remember because I was reading about them at the time, or participating in some form in the discussion. How many are there that just slip through? Well, you can kinda see for yourself (second hand guessing, by proxy etc.):
1. MDN lists various web APIs, including experimental ones: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API Almost every single one that's marked "experimental" is shipped by default in Chrome
2. Mozilla lists its position on various standards. Almost all of those marked as "considered harmful/negative" are shipped by default in Chrome https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ (exceptions are a few deprecated and removed ones like HTML Imports)
3. Chrome currently ships 1100 more APIs more than Firefox: https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence (note: a single standard like "File System Access API" may expose dozens of these APIs) Is it because Firefox is lagging, or is it because Chrome just powers through, all consensus be damned?
