Track web target support strategy for bdk-dart

[reez]

Define whether and how bdk-dart can support web usage, and what level of support is realistic in the near term.

Scope

• Evaluate technical feasibility of web support with current bdk-ffi/UniFFI/native-assets model.
• Document required architecture options:
  • wasm-based path
  • service/backend-assisted path
  • “not currently feasible” with clear rationale
• Identify security and wallet-model implications for browser environments.
• Define expected user experience and limitations.
• Decide support level for web in SUPPORTED_TARGETS.md (supported, experimental, not supported).

Deliverables

• A short design note (docs/web-support.md) with recommendation and tradeoffs.
• Explicit web status in SUPPORTED_TARGETS.md.
• README note linking to the design/status.
• Follow-up implementation issues (if feasible path is chosen).

Acceptance Criteria

• Maintainers align on a documented recommendation.
• Users can clearly understand whether web is currently supported.
• If not supported yet, blockers and next steps are explicit.
• Requirements for production-ready release #16 checklist links this issue.

Notes

• This issue is about strategy and scope definition first.
• Implementation can be split into follow-up issues once direction is agreed.

[reez]

I believe the blocker would be uniffi-dart? generates native-only bindings and that binding model does not run on web targets? So web support needs either a uniffi-dart web/wasm backend or a separate web binding layer (plus platform abstraction) alongside the current native backend.

[Johnosezele]

Yeah, browsers cannot load .so/.dylib/.dll files. Currently uniffi-dart relies on dart:ffi which is not supported in the browser. I think dart:js_interop + wasm-bindgen is a good way to approach this.

[reez]

Yeah, browsers cannot load .so/.dylib/.dll files. Currently uniffi-dart relies on dart:ffi which is not supported in the browser. I think dart:js_interop + wasm-bindgen is a good way to approach this.

thanks for that response sounds like we are in agreement and thanks for that extra detail