Adding something in rust into a browser means you now need to bundle all of the needed crates and that your browser now also needs rustc to build… at a minimum.
You also need potentially to audit all the crates and keep them up to date and so on… without crates you can't do so much.
I can see that for components heavily interfacing with high surface area things like encryption, hardware interfacing etc., but why would that be true for a relatively “pure” computational problem like an image codec? Bytes in, bytes out.
If all the disks failed it could be the recording drive, assuming they weren't separately verified at the time or writing or since.
Our school's collection of BBCs included one drive that could read everything, including data it had created, but most of the other drives would reject anything it had written. Once identified that drive was taken out of general circulation and only used to read data for writing to a new disk in a second drive, and eventually skipped once it was unlikely any data someone cared about had been written by it and not copied elsewhere.
This often comes down to regularly testing old data. Floppies shouldn't have been used for archive storage but often were, with a problem only being noticed years down the line when the data needed to be read. Other media similarly: recorded CDs and DVDs from a decade or more ago are sometimes not readable now. An archive is only an archive if you can actually read it, much like an untested backup is just a hope not really a backup.
If you're in the US, write to the FTC and complain that this is discriminatory toward the disabled who may need special user agent accessibility features unavailable in Chrome.
Which Python, 2 or 3? How will you handle local versus global dependencies? Will you use pip, conda, virtualenv or something else? How will you package up the code and/or executable?
You also need potentially to audit all the crates and keep them up to date and so on… without crates you can't do so much.