On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Roger Hågensen <rh_wha...@skuldwyrm.no>

> On 2017-04-19 11:28, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I already pointed to https://wicg.github.io/entries-api/ as a way to
>> get access to a directory of files and <input type=file> as a way to
>> get access to a sequence of files. Both for read access. I haven't
>> seen any interest to go beyond that.
> Is this the Filesystem & FileWriter API ?

A small subset of the functionality specified in FileSystem was used by
Chrome to expose directory upload. Support for that subset necessary for
interop of directory upload has been implemented by Firefox and Edge. I put
up the entries-api spec to try and re-specify just that subset. (It's a
work in progress.)

> This was added to Chrome/Opera under the webkit prefix 7 years ago, Edge
> and Firefox has not picked this up yet (just the Reader part).
> (as shown by http://caniuse.com/#search=file )

The market apparently demonstrates that a sandboxed file system storage API
isn't high priority for browser vendors to implement.

> I avoid prefixed features, and try to use only features that latest
> Edge/Chrome/Firefox support so that end users are more likely to not end up
> in a situation where their browser do not support a app.
> And unless I remember wrong Firefox did support this at some point then
> removed it again.
> Take for example my soundbank app.
> A end user would want to either use a file selector or drag'n'drop to the
> app (browser) window to add files to the soundboard.
> Let us assume that 30+ sounds are added (I don't even think the
> filerequester handles multiselection properly in all browsers today)
> Would it be fair to expect the user to have to re-add these each time they
> start/open the app? During a week that is a lot of pointless work.
> Saving filenames is not practical, and even if it was there would be no
> paths.
> And storing the sounds in IndexDB or localStorage is out of the question
> as that is limited to a total of 5MB or even less in most browsers, 30+
> samples easily consumes that.

You may want to check again. An origin typically gets an order of magnitude
more storage than that for Indexed DB across browsers and devices.

> The ideal here is to make a html soundboard app locally (i.e file://) then
> copy it as is to a webserver. Users can either use it from there (http://
> or https:// online and/or offline) or "Save As" the document and use it
> locally (file://) for preservation or offline use without server dependency.
> The only way to make this work currently is to make the user hand write
> the path (full or relative) to each sound and store that in localStorage
> along with volume and fade in/out.
> But fade in and out is "faked" by adjusting the <audio> volume as CORS
> prevents processing the audio and doing a proper crossfade between sounds
> which is possible but locked down due to CORS.
> I can understand limitations due to security concerns, but arbitrary
> limitations to functionality baffles me.
> I do not see much difference between file:// http(s):// besides one
> allowing serverside data processing and http headers, but these days most
> apps are entirely clientside. A sample editor can be written that is fully
> clientside, even including mic recording normalizing, FX, the server is not
> involved in any stage except delivering the .html file + a few lines of
> headers. The web app itself is identical (i.e. hash/checksum identical) be
> it http(s): or file:
> The benefit is that "the app is the source code" which is a ideal goal of
> open source as anyone can review and copy and modify as they please.
> And in theory it could run just as well truly offline/standalone as it
> could online without the need for a local webserver or similar.
> I'd dare say that thinking of a web app as something hosted only from a
> server via http(s) is a antiquated idea.
> These days a "web" app can be hosted via anything, want to open a webapp
> that is served from a cloud storage like Dropbox? Not a problem.
> Well, almost not a problem. a cloud storage probably do not have the
> proper CORS header to allow a sample editor to process sound from local
> files or files stored on a different cloud service.
> And a soundboard or a sample editor is just two examples, a image or video
> edit would have similar issues. OR what about a game with mod support?
> Being able to drag'n'drop a mod onto a game and then have the game load it
> the next time you start the game would be a huge benefit.
> But currently this can not be done, the mod would have to be uploaded to
> the server the game is served from, even if the game itself does not use or
> need any serverside scripting.
> Or imagine a medical app that needs to read in CSV data, such a app could
> work fully offline/local and load up the data each time it's started.
> Storing the data in localstorage/indexDB would be limited to whatever else
> is stored as far as size goes, and browsers can just wipe the local
> storage/indexDB without warning. At least a local file stored on d:\docs\
> is safe from vanishing.
> Even if the app itself is online and served from a server you still can't
> have it load a list.CSV from d:\docs\ when starting it for example. And
> IndexDB/localStorage is limited to around 5MB total for that domain. Maybe
> there is a desire to switch between datasets list1.csv and list2.csv and
> list3.csv and before you know it you open xray.png enhance a area and save
> that change (in localStorage as you can save the path and a zoomvalue you
> have to save the entire image instead) and suddenly list1.csv get deleted
> from localStorage for that domain. And these are limitations to http(s):
> and not just file:

One of the ideas you're highlighting here is around allowing web apps to
access local files in a read/write fashion, possibly in a persistent way.
There's been some discussion about that at:


On the topic of file:// behavior - the history of support in browsers is
instructional here. Early browsers (naively) assumed that local content
could be fully trusted, more so than content served over HTTP (think IE
security zones). As the web security model has evolved, the capabilities
granted to file:// content has become more and more restricted over the
years. I expect that trend to continue rather than reverse.

> --
> Unless specified otherwise, anything I write publicly is considered Public
> Domain (CC0).
> Roger Hågensen,
> Freelancer, Norway.

Reply via email to