Firefox doesn’t implement the AudioData API, which is probably necessary for the waveform viewer and cropping tool Discord presents in the soundboard management UI.
Yet another experimental API only supported by Chrome. Chrome has always been like this, implementing experimental API that hasn’t been finalized yet. You might say they’re innovating to support new technologies, but actually it’s more like they’re doing whatever they pleased, as demonstrated by their removal of jpeg xl support despite web communities plea not to do so (a new more efficient image compression, but not made by Google so screw it), pushing manifest V3 and ad topics, and recent push for web environment integrity API.
Not sure if these built in decoders are supported though. Seems a bit dangerous to expose native codecs directly from the web to be honest, since you’ll end up with wildly varying support across browsers.
I remember ages ago websites were all focused on “works best on Internet Explorer” or “please use Netscape for the best experience”
We managed a good solid decade after that where browsers all somewhat caught up to each other and now we’re going back that way again, with each website just YOLO implementing APIs that aren’t fully supported (with no polyfils or fallbacks)
When you did that back in IE7/8/9, you missed out on rounded corners or drop shadows, now whole parts of apps won’t work unless you’re on chrome 🤯
Thank fucking people like you. The average Lemmy user just knows everything.
I have seen so many Lemmy users think they are better than Reddit users. Truth is, you are all fucking ass holes you are just different kinds of ass holes.
None of us agree with Google’s choices but for fucks sake not everything is because Google chose it.
Sometimes it’s just in the damn browser. Like fuck off.
I use Chrome and Firefox and have two different online personas with both.
If you clicked the link. It says experimental technology. It’s not mozilla’s fault Chrome is adding features that are not standard. Sites like Discord for utilizing non standard API’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Firefox doesn’t implement the AudioData API, which is probably necessary for the waveform viewer and cropping tool Discord presents in the soundboard management UI.
Not everything is about Chrome DRM yall.
Yet another experimental API only supported by Chrome. Chrome has always been like this, implementing experimental API that hasn’t been finalized yet. You might say they’re innovating to support new technologies, but actually it’s more like they’re doing whatever they pleased, as demonstrated by their removal of jpeg xl support despite web communities plea not to do so (a new more efficient image compression, but not made by Google so screw it), pushing manifest V3 and ad topics, and recent push for web environment integrity API.
EEE yall
How can they not support jpg xl? It’s such a huge thing
Firefox and Safari is also implementing experimental features often.
I think Moz helped write and supports this. I even think it’s (partially enabled in nightly?)
Not sure if these built in decoders are supported though. Seems a bit dangerous to expose native codecs directly from the web to be honest, since you’ll end up with wildly varying support across browsers.
I remember ages ago websites were all focused on “works best on Internet Explorer” or “please use Netscape for the best experience”
We managed a good solid decade after that where browsers all somewhat caught up to each other and now we’re going back that way again, with each website just YOLO implementing APIs that aren’t fully supported (with no polyfils or fallbacks)
When you did that back in IE7/8/9, you missed out on rounded corners or drop shadows, now whole parts of apps won’t work unless you’re on chrome 🤯
Thank fucking people like you. The average Lemmy user just knows everything.
I have seen so many Lemmy users think they are better than Reddit users. Truth is, you are all fucking ass holes you are just different kinds of ass holes.
None of us agree with Google’s choices but for fucks sake not everything is because Google chose it.
Sometimes it’s just in the damn browser. Like fuck off.
I use Chrome and Firefox and have two different online personas with both.
If you clicked the link. It says experimental technology. It’s not mozilla’s fault Chrome is adding features that are not standard. Sites like Discord for utilizing non standard API’s.
is the other one less touchy?
It appears the Reddit users that don’t read further than the title have arrived on Lemmy.
Shocking news: people are people everywhere, not just on ‘rival’ platforms.
Care to elaborate? I can’t make sense of your response
For some god damn reason he’s trying to turn this into a ‘reddit bad’ discussion.
I didn’t read that comment either, and I still don’t know what they’re talking about.
Yeah unfortunately it looks like they are here too, oh well at least it’s money out of spez’s hands
Any reason FF hasn’t implemented this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
dont show firefox users any modern web feature
Hope you’ll continue to lick the Google even after Chrome implements DRM.
This isn’t a chrome is bad issue, this is a discord is bad issue. They shouldn’t be relying on an experimental feature.
im a firefox user