this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
595 points (89.1% liked)

Technology

59657 readers
2710 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Any reason FF hasn't implemented this?

[–] d3Xt3r@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because Firefox is like a democracy, they prioritize work based on number of votes on issues/feature requests. The AudioEncoder API has literally just one vote, and the overall WebCodecs API that it's a part of only has five votes. This shows that there's very little demand for it, meaning very few sites actually use this (that or the vast majority of Firefox users don't use/need this feature). Why bother focusing your efforts on implementing something that most users don't care about? The higher priority things that most Firefox users care about is stuff like performance, and Mozilla have been making some good progress too on that front.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing isn't only about votes. Both APIs are top priority but there are blocked and depends on other stuff that also needs to be fixed or implemented.

[–] d3Xt3r@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

AudioEncoder (bug 1749046) doesn't really have any dependencies or blockers, as far as I can tell. If there are, then you (or whoever has access) should update Bugzilla and add the dependency there.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly, I found bugzilla hard to read, so I am not sure but it looks like the WebCodecs API needs to be implemented first. And that one has a bunch of other stuff, I think.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is an experimental API that hasn't been finalized yet. Firefox devs has limited engineering resource and simply can't keep up with Chrome's push to implement experimental/proposal API. Safari also hasn't implemented this yet because they also usually wait until the API finalized, which can take quite a while.