At this point in time all browsers, and also Node.js, support standard `import`/`export` statements and we can now finally consider outputting modern JavaScript modules in the builds.[1]
In order for this to work we can *only* use proper `import`/`export` statements throughout the main code-base, and (as expected) our Node.js support made this much more complicated since both the official builds and the GitHub Actions-based tests must keep working.[2]
One remaining issue is that the `pdf.scripting.js` file cannot be built as a JavaScript module, since doing so breaks PDF scripting.
Note that my initial goal was to try and split these changes into a couple of commits, however that unfortunately didn't really work since it turned out to be difficult for smaller patches to work correctly and pass (all) tests that way.[3]
This is a classic case of every change requiring a couple of other changes, with each of those changes requiring further changes in turn and the size/scope quickly increasing as a result.
One possible "issue" with these changes is that we'll now only output JavaScript modules in the builds, which could perhaps be a problem with older tools. However it unfortunately seems far too complicated/time-consuming for us to attempt to support both the old and modern module formats, hence the alternative would be to do "nothing" here and just keep our "old" builds.[4]
---
[1] The final blocker was module support in workers in Firefox, which was implemented in Firefox 114; please see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import#browser_compatibility
[2] It's probably possible to further improve/simplify especially the Node.js-specific code, but it does appear to work as-is.
[3] Having partially "broken" patches, that fail tests, as part of the commit history is *really not* a good idea in general.
[4] Outputting JavaScript modules was first requested almost five years ago, see issue 10317, and nowadays there *should* be much better support for JavaScript modules in various tools.
The tag <base> is used to resolve relative URIs within the document.
Newly added SVG filters use a relative URI which then use the URI in base
but this one mismatches with the document URI and consequently filters are
not found in the Firefox viewer.
So this patch just removes <base> and replace few relative URLs by absolute
ones.
Based on the discussion in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1521413, this patch simply removes the `ReadableStream` polyfill completely from MOZCENTRAL builds.
With this patch, the size of the `gulp mozcentral` build target is thus further reduced (building on PR 10470):
| | `build/mozcentral`
|-------|-------------------
|master | 3 339 666
|patch | 3 209 572
With https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505122 landing in Firefox 65, the native `ReadableStream` implementation is now enabled by default in Firefox.
Obviously it would be nice to simply stop bundling the polyfill in MOZCENTRAL builds altogether, however given that it's still possible to disable[1] `ReadableStream` this is probably not a good idea just yet.
Nonetheless, now that native support is available, it seems unnecessary (and wasteful) to keep bundling the polyfill twice[2] in MOZCENTRAL builds. Hence this patch, which contains a suggest approach for packing the polyfill in a *separate* file which is then *only* loaded if/when needed.
With this patch, the size of the `gulp mozcentral` build target is thus reduced accordingly:
| | `build/mozcentral`
|-------|-------------------
|master | 3 461 089
|patch | 3 340 268
Besides the PDF.js files taking up less space in Firefox this way, the additional benefit is that there's (by default) less code that needs to be loaded and parsed when the PDF Viewer is used which also cannot hurt.
---
[1] In `about:config`, by toggling the `javascript.options.streams` preference.
[2] Once in the `build/pdf.js` file, and once in the `build/pdf.worker.js` file.
"text/javascript" is not a correct MIME type (the correct one is
"application/javascript") but it's not even needed; all browsers default
to the correct type and treat it as executable JS when type is ommited.
Since not all browsers recognize the "application/javascript" MIME type
the only way to both stay compliant and to support all popular browsers
is to omit the type. It's also shorter this way.
