The web just gets better with Interop 2024

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Browser vendors’ Interop 2024 initiative aims to tighten cross-browser consistency, with a strong emphasis on CSS features like nesting, scrollbars, typography, and popover behavior, which many see as practical wins for everyday web layout and design. Commenters are split on priorities: some welcome these quality-of-life improvements, while others argue that more transformative capabilities for Progressive Web Apps—such as reliable local file access, storage persistence, and broader PWA install support—are being neglected, often blaming Apple’s and Mozilla’s security and privacy objections to Google-led proposals. The exchange highlights deeper tensions over web complexity, standardization politics, and how much the web should evolve toward native-app-like capabilities versus preserving user privacy and platform control.

Interop 2024 focus and selection

  • Interop is seen as useful coordination, but some feel many chosen items (CSS, popover, QoL fixes) are things browsers were shipping anyway, not the thorniest interop gaps.
  • Others counter that these areas (CSS nesting, scroll snap, popover, IndexedDB, accessibility, workers) have broad impact on day‑to‑day development and are exactly what many developers want.
  • Process-wise, it’s described as a small cross‑browser group aligning around what they can realistically work on alongside normal roadmaps, more about harmonizing behavior than forcing new features.

PWAs, capabilities, and browser politics

  • Several commenters ask why there isn’t a dedicated PWA focus area; responses say PWA-relevant pieces (IndexedDB, service workers, mobile, modules) are already included.
  • Debate over missing or unevenly implemented APIs: OPFS, file-system access, Trusted Types, URLPattern, JSON modules, import attributes.
  • Strong disagreement about Apple’s motives: some accuse it of protecting the App Store by slowing PWA capabilities; others say Apple and Firefox are blocking unsafe, non‑standard Chrome proposals (WebUSB/WebHID/WebSerial, some PWA “capabilities”) on privacy/security grounds.
  • Confusion and disagreement about what “dropping PWA support” means for Firefox (APIs vs installable desktop PWAs).

Storage, filesystem, and persistence

  • OPFS and broader file-system access APIs are seen by some as crucial to making PWAs true native competitors (local file editing, no backend storage).
  • Counterargument: powerful storage APIs are potential long‑term tracking vectors; storage behavior must align with anti‑tracking policies.
  • Safari’s 14‑day deletion of data for rarely visited sites and non‑persistent storage eviction frustrate offline‑first app authors. “Persistent” storage via navigator.storage.persist() is criticized as opaque and unreliable in practice.
  • Some argue Apple and Mozilla correctly rejected Chrome’s file-system access spec as unsafe; others fault them for not proposing acceptable alternatives.

CSS, UI, and scrollbars

  • CSS nesting, popover, scroll snap, subgrid, color functions, filters, etc. are widely applauded as reducing JS boilerplate and making the web feel more “native.”
  • Scrollbar styling inclusion divides opinion: some see it as vital for complex UIs and a compromise to avoid JS scrollbars; others see it as unnecessary designer-driven customization that hurts usability and accessibility.
  • Broader tension between native platform consistency vs cross‑platform “same everywhere” web design; cost and neglect of native toolkits are cited as drivers toward web UIs.

Images, color, typography, and icons

  • JPEG XL’s absence disappoints proponents who see it as a technically superior image format; defenders say AVIF already has more adoption and is “good enough.”
  • Wide-gamut/P3 color support is noted as uneven (Firefox clamping to sRGB). Debate on how widely high‑gamut displays really matter today.
  • Some want more CSS typography features (e.g., leading/text-box-trim, margin-trim) prioritized cross‑browser.
  • SVG favicons and simplified icon handling are requested; Safari’s partial solutions and Apple‑specific icon requirements are seen as friction for casual devs.

Browser models, tests, and missing areas

  • Safari tying engine updates to OS versions (especially on iOS) is criticized as leaving older hardware stuck with outdated features/bugs; defenders argue iOS upgrade rates are high and security patches are backported.
  • Some criticize Interop/WPT metrics for including non‑standard Chrome APIs and making Safari/Firefox look worse.
  • Concerns about missing or under‑emphasized areas: WebGPU, WebAssembly GC/multiple memories, WebXR, form controls, hyphenation quality, Cookie Store API.
  • Meta‑discussion: some lament web complexity and dominance of a few engines; others argue rich app capabilities and profitable software delivery are now the web’s de facto role. Alternative simple protocols (Gemini, Spartan, Scorpion) are mentioned as experiments outside the mainstream web.