[apavlo]

> so... you take 10%-30% performance hit _right away_, and you perpetually give up any opportunities to improve the decoder in the future.

The WASM is meant as a backup. If you have the native decoder installed (e.g., as a crate), then a system will prefer to use that. Otherwise, fallback to WASM. A 10-30% performance hit is worth it over not being able to read a file at all.

[Certhas]

It even says so right in the abstract:

"Embedding the decoders in each file requires minimal storage (kilobytes) and ensures compatibility on any platform in case native decoders are unavailable."

The idea that software I write today can decode a data file written in ten years using new encodings is quite appealing.

And the idea that new software written to make use of the new encodings doesn't have to carry the burden of implementing the whole history of encoders for backwards compatibility likewise.

[silvestrov]

Now you have code stored in your database which you don't know what will do when you execute it.

Sounds very much like the security pain from macros in Excel and Microsoft Word that could do anything.

This is why most PDF readers will ignore any javascript embedded inside PDF files.