# Web Client Feasibility Assessment

**Date:** 2026-06-11
**Purpose:** Brief assessment of web client feasibility for Chanora (TODO-073)

---

## Precedent: TeaSpeak Web Client

TeaSpeak built a web client (TypeScript, MPL-2.0) that demonstrated:
- Browser-based TeamSpeak-compatible voice is technically feasible
- WebAudio API handles Opus decode/encode via WebAssembly
- Installation-less access is a compelling user benefit
- VP8 video/screen sharing worked (with bugs)

**Status:** Archived July 2025, unmaintained since ~2022.

---

## Technical Requirements

| Component | Browser API | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|
| Audio capture | `getUserMedia()` + `MediaStream` | ✅ Well-supported |
| Opus encode/decode | WebAssembly (libopus) | ✅ ~100µs encode, feasible |
| UDP transport | Not available in browsers | ❌ **Blocker** |
| WebSocket fallback | `WebSocket` | ⚠️ Requires proxy/gateway |
| TLS/WebRTC | `RTCPeerConnection` | ⚠️ Possible but complex |
| File transfer | `File` API + WebSocket | ✅ Feasible |

---

## Key Challenge: Transport

TS3 protocol uses **raw UDP** with custom encryption (EAX mode). Browsers cannot send raw UDP packets.

### Options

1. **WebSocket proxy** — Server-side gateway translates WebSocket↔UDP
   - Requires infrastructure (not self-hosted friendly)
   - Adds latency (~10-50ms per hop)
   - Breaks end-to-end encryption

2. **WebRTC data channel** — Browser-to-browser UDP-like channel
   - Requires signaling server
   - NAT traversal complexity
   - Not compatible with TS3 server protocol

3. **WASM + raw sockets** — Not possible (browser sandbox)

---

## Verdict

**Not feasible in current scope.** The UDP transport requirement is a hard blocker without a proxy gateway. Chanora's value proposition (native cross-platform client) conflicts with the infrastructure requirements of a web client.

### If pursued in future

- Build a lightweight WebSocket↔UDP gateway (Rust, ~500 lines)
- Reuse `chanora_protocol` for server-side translation
- Host gateway alongside TS3 server or as optional service
- Web client would be a thin UI layer over the gateway

---

## Recommendation

**Defer indefinitely.** Focus on native client quality. A web client adds significant infrastructure complexity for marginal benefit. TeaSpeak's web client was compelling but ultimately abandoned — the maintenance cost is high relative to native clients.