File System Access considered harmful, will not be implemented: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
Note: in true Google fashion Chrome team implemented and released at least three different APIs all having something to do with files.
Status of File System Access? "not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/ Shipped in Chrome, of course.
https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ is positive on it
and implementation is well underway: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1748667
To hopefully add a bit of clarity: indeed, that page has OPFS flagged as positive under the label "File System." Further down the page is a "File System Access" entry which is flagged negative.
I didn't want to dig through all of them on mobile when I was responding.
Both Safari and Mozilla are open (and implement/have implemented) to Origin Private File System. Because it gives web sites an access to a file system without a chance of escaping and damaging user data. Can't remember which spec introduced it, and it doesn't really matter at this point.
For the more general part of File System Access Mozilla's and Safari's positions are: nope. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
There was also Storage Foundation API but it was thankfully never shipped (it was like a third way of handling files or something),and also received negative responses: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5670244905385984
They seem quite positive to parts of the spec. Don't know if that's the parts relevant here or not.
Chrome is the young IE, the one disregarding the competition and imposing their own standards.
Safari is the old IE, the one that is behind other browsers in terms of standard as but that you cannot ignore because it ha too big of a market share
Coup d'état: French, "stroke (coup) over/of the State (état)".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
/pedantry
Hell, even the $LARGE_CORPORATION I work at has all its developer tooling (including documentation, custom extensions, etc.) on Chrome. I've reported countless Firefox-specific issues, often due to missing API support, because no one internally tests on anything other than Chrome. You have to meet your users where they are.
As a cautionary tale: the moment Firefox shipped support for a hardware API they immediately ran into sites abusing them. Of course, Chrome doesn't even hide them behind a user prompt. https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931 (and comment)
There are reasons Firefox opposes these standards. Chrome is neither your friend nor does it care for the web. Why are you so willing to give a carte blanche to a power struggle (Chrome/Web vs. Android) inside a web advertising company is beyond me.
Somehow "everything that Chrome ships" is core functionality now
> broken or slow on Firefox but work fine on Chrome.
Somehow you blame Firefox for this. Even though "only works in IE" isn't even ancient history
It's not broken because they are fussy on standards.
it's broken because their marketshare dropped so low companies that make money on developing web stuff are often not contractually obliged to even support it. Few of our clients have contracts where we're obliged to support any browser above 5% market share and FF is already below even that!
They might when their files get exfiltrated or encrypted. The file system access API UX is far too easily abused to misleading users into granting access to things they didn’t intend.