HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
mozilla
standards-positions
HTML2019–2026
mozilla / standards-positions

standards-positions

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
119Distinct people
192Mentions
2Explicit recommenders
764GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

I love firefox except for a fairly recent feature adopted by chrome, which is the ability to update usb device firmware through a web browser via the Web Serial API. I do a lot…

cronix used a recommendation phrase. 2 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 6:36:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year192 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-03-13 13:55:54 UTC to 2026-10-18 02:52:23 UTC.

0102030402019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 0 submissions, 11 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 0 submissions, 12 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 30 mentions; 3 submissions, 27 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 1 submissions, 14 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 39 mentions; 6 submissions, 33 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 30 mentions; 3 submissions, 27 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 29 mentions; 0 submissions, 29 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 26 mentions; 1 submissions, 25 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11011
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12012
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC30327
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15114
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC39633
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC30327
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC29029
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC26125

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Mozilla's Positions on Emerging Web Specifications See the dashboard for Mozilla's current positions. What is this Repository? This repo is where Mozilla decides and documents what it thinks about emerging technical specifications for the Web. Typically they're draft documents in the IETF, W3C (including the WICG), WHATWG, and Ecma TC39, but they could come from elsewhere too. Having a clear Mozilla position on these specifications helps us align our thinking and communicate it clearly to these standards bodies, as well as other browsers. Implementation status (or even intention) isn't tracked here; see dev-platform. Possible Specification Positions We will seek to apply one of three labels to new specifications: positive - Mozilla regards this work as a potential improvement to the web. neutral - Mozilla is not convinced of the merits of this work, but does not see any significant negative potential. negative - Mozilla believes that pursuing this work in its current form would not be good for the web. These positions will be based on our best assessment of the current state of the specification and the potential for it to benefit our users and the web as a whole. We consider the intended purpose and the design fundamentals of each specification. Incomplete documentation, minor issues, or lack of interoperability testing are not reasons for a negative position, provided that intent is clear. We might also use the following labels for specifications where we have not formed a position: defer - Mozilla takes no position on this work. under consideration - Mozilla has not taken a position on this work and is gathering more information. What about Firefox? A position here does not address whether Mozilla will commit resources to developing a specification. In particular, taking a position does not commit Mozilla to implementing a specification in Firefox. Requesting a Position See our contribution guidelines for information about how you can participate. Building locally See DEVELOP.md.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

29 sources
culi·Dec 27, 2025
Yes exactly. Voting for the 2026 focus areas is happening now btw. The next year's interop usually releases around February https://webkit.org/blog/17320/submit-your-ideas-for-interop-... And yes JPEG XL support is often the most requested feature and the major browsers have responded. Google and Firefox are both willing to take it on but Firefox's biggest concern is with the reference decoder which has some major security flaws. They basically want to wait until libjxl/jxl-rs is performant enough https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 Here's the current issue for that proposal if you want to get involved https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/994
In PNG in Chrome shows a different image than in Safari or any desktop app
JimDabell·Dec 5, 2025
Curiously, Can I Use says: > All major browser engines are working on implementing this spec. However their official positions are absent: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1167 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/453 And Firefox’s bug for implementing it has no activity: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1981485 And Can I Use’s underlying data doesn’t have this note: https://github.com/Fyrd/caniuse/blob/fedfb067aceccb2a5edadcc... So it’s unclear why the Can I Use website is saying that everybody is working on it.
In CSS now has an if() conditional function
homebrewer·Nov 24, 2025
It's not just Google, Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains either: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064 avif is just better for typical web image quality, it produces better looking images and its artifacts aren't as annoying (smoothing instead of blocking and ringing around sharp edges). You also get it for basically free because it's just an av1 key frame. Every browser needs an av1 decoder already unless it's willing to forego users who would like to be able to watch Netflix and YouTube.
In Chrome Jpegxl Issue Reopened
JimDabell·Nov 5, 2025
> They did not agree to remove it. This is a spun lie from the public posts I can see. They agreed to explore removing it but preferred to keep it for good reasons. Mozilla: > Our position is that it would be good for the long-term health of the web platform and good for user security to remove XSLT, and we support Chromium's effort to find out if it would be web compatible to remove support. — https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1287#i... WebKit: > WebKit is cautiously supportive. We'd probably wait for one implementation to fully remove support, though if there's a known list of origins that participate in a reverse origin trial we could perhaps participate sooner. — https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-314... Describing either of those as “they preferred to keep it” is blatantly untrue.
In Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
troupo·Sep 25, 2025
Anytime you see someone on HN lamenting that Safari is the new IE because it doesn't implement something, 99.9% of the time it's Chrome-only non-standards. - All of hardware standards. WebHID's timeline is especially egregious https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is... - Most of standards advertised on web.dev as "new exciting opportunities you can try now". E.g. WebTransport https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/web-apis/webt.... The status of that spec is "scribbled on a napkin", but somehow already released in Chrome. - Other "standards" and "specs" here and there like web share target https://w3c.github.io/web-share-target/ Can I Use had to create a special UNOFF tag for all the web APIs that Chrome (mostly Chrome) ships. If you go to MDN and look at all APIs marked as "experimental", you'll find that mos
Read the rest
t of them are already shipped in Chrome: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API
In Helium Browser
JimDabell·Jul 29, 2025
> They are actively working on the standard and Firefox has committed to it. Mozilla standards position says neutral: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#fedcm Their issue tracker on the subject shows they are interested but have a lot of reservations about the details: > However, some of our reservations on the initial positive position have not been addressed and some new issues have arisen. — https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/618 Apple had a vague “interested” position over three years ago, with no further detail: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/309 Have these positions changed?
In Sign in with Google in Chrome
OneDeuxTriSeiGo·Jul 15, 2025
JXL is still alive and well, it's just taking time to reach the prime time. - Mac OS, iOS, and Safari support JPEG-XL - Windows has first party JPEG-XL support as of this year (admittedly it's opt in rather than default) - Essentially every major image processing app, editor, or drawing app supports JPEG-XL - Firefox has preliminary support for JPEG-XL gated behind a feature flag and the nightly release. - The JPEG-XL team is writing a direct port of the reference libjxl library into rust[1]. There already exists a third party rust port by some of the mainline contributors and it has ironed out a lot of the issues with the porting process prior to this mainline port. This first party rust port is intended to be gradually brought up to a hardened, production ready state. - Mozilla has stated they have no objections to fully adopting JPEG-X
Read the rest
L in Firefox once the rust port is production ready [2]. The last major barriers other than getting the rust code production ready will be chrome and android's first party support/adoption. ------ TLDR: JPEG-XL is very much not dead and instead people are nose down working hard to continue pushing its adoption forward. ------ 1. https://github.com/libjxl/jxl-rs 2. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1064
In The JPEG XL Image Coding History, Features, Coding Tools, Design Rationale

Showing the 15 most recent of 29 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.