Web Bluetooth API support

[proof-llc]

Description

https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/

Specification

W3C

web-feature

https://web-platform-dx.github.io/web-features-explorer/features/web-bluetooth/

Test Links

No response

Additional Signals

No response

[github-actions]

This comment was automatically generated based on the information you provided. Please don't edit it.

Below is additional information about the web feature (from the web-features project) which is referenced in your proposal.
If this doesn't accurately correspond to your proposal, please update your initial comment to include web-features: <feature-id>.
To find feature IDs, use the web-features explorer.

Feature Web Bluetooth

• ID: web-bluetooth
• Name: Web Bluetooth
• Description: The Web Bluetooth API enables selecting and communicating with nearby Bluetooth devices.
• Baseline status: Limited Availability
• Docs: Web Bluetooth API
• Standard positions: Mozilla
• Chrome use counter: chromestatus.com
• State of CSS/JS/HTML surveys: State of HTML 2024 (usage question)
• WPT tests: wpt.fyi/results/?q=feature:web-bluetooth
• More information: See the web-features explorer

[scheib]

goo.gle/tpac2022-device-apis remains representative of use cases Web Bluetooth is serving.

[bkardell]

Noting that the mozilla position is expressly negative and there doesn't seem to be a filed position for webkit? Can that be right? https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20bluetooth

[gfwilliams]

We have now shipped over 50,000 devices that our customers are relying on Web Bluetooth for communication with, so I'd hugely appreciate better support in different browsers.

To address the Mozilla position on security: I believe Web Bluetooth has been available on Chrome, on billions of devices, for several years now, and I can't seem to find any instances of abuse. I think at this point naysayers should really have to come up with evidence to back up their claims.

In the mean time I've lost count of the times hardware I've purchased has required me to install a dubious-looking apps or APKs to make it work - and there's a very real, well-documented risk of malware (or just unpatched software libraries) there.

Widespread adoption of Web Bluetooth would reduce the need for those apps, and so would actually increase security for most users.

[bkardell]

This doesn't currently meet the criteria required for interop 2026, I believe, as both Mozilla and WebKit have negative standards positions.

[gfwilliams]

both mozilla/standards-positions#95 and WebKit/standards-positions#570 have negative standards positions.

Is that a criteria? It didn't mention it on https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop

But I do see:

Documented examples of sites or libraries working around the fact that a feature is missing

And while it's not easy to quantify who installed Chrome or Edge to get the functionality that Mozilla and WebKit don't provide, you can see apps that have been developed to try and work around iOS's lack of support:

• https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bluefy-web-ble-browser/id1492822055
• https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ble-link-web-ble-browser/id6468414672
• https://apps.apple.com/us/app/webble/id1193531073
• https://apps.apple.com/us/app/c-browser/id1535410551

I'm not sure how to see how many installs there are but given I found 4 Web Bluetooth apps in about a minute, I imagine there are other browsers too and a significant amount of users needing them.

[bkardell]

@gfwilliams let me clarify what I meant. And, to be clear, these are not somehow comments about my own thoughts on the spec.

The requirements of inclusion in interop include:

This feature has a mature-enough web standard from an established standards development organization such as IETF, Khronos Group, TC39, WHATWG, or the W3C.

WebBluetooth is a in CG. All you need to create a CG is 5 individuals who have taken the time to create a free W3C account to also express support. CGs are not standards track, and cannot themselves produce official specifications. It isn't even specifically in the Incubator community group, though, it seems it's definitely that since, as you say, it's shipping in chromium for some time. That's not to say that it's impossible for a thing to advance pretty quickly into a good stage if implementers are onboard though, but advancement from there to something I think would safely fit interop requirements would require something like wide support. It just doesn't seem to me that I can, in good faith, argue that it has that given it has actual opposition from 2 of 3 engines at current.

[wpt-interop]

Thank you for proposing Web Bluetooth API support for Interop 2026.

We want to let you know it was not selected to be part of Interop this year.

On behalf of the entire Interop team, thank you for submitting it for consideration. We got many more proposals than we could include in this year's project, necessitating some difficult choices. Please note this should not be taken as a comment on the technology as a whole, or our willingness to consider it for Interop in the future. We appreciate the work you put into your proposal, and would welcome your participation in future rounds of Interop.

Posted on behalf of the Interop team.