> > It may be better to ask actual web developers regarding the least > confusing option amongst those proposed.
The Web-developers I am in contact with are happiest with CropTarget. One of them has mentioned that on issue #18 <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/18>. Other Web-developers have not shown up with a preference one way or another. It bears mentioning that we have been discussing the API in the WebRTC Working Group for approximately 14 <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1crumgYj4eHkjo04faLktPTg0QoYJhTFoosEBudfJBuw/edit#slide=id.g7954c29f8a_2_0> months <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1crumgYj4eHkjo04faLktPTg0QoYJhTFoosEBudfJBuw/edit#slide=id.g7954c29f8a_2_0>. The initial name for this part of the API was CropID. It was changed <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/commit/a60b62cb8946d2c6f79de57ff54bb8cd2a0b8550> to CropTarget ~4 months ago, following discussions in the WG. Youenn filed issue #18 <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/18> ~2 months ago. During those two months, no WG member, browser-implementer or Web-developer voiced concerns about the "CropTarget" name. Youenn has made several suggestions (Viewport, LayoutBox). I believe I have addressed these suggestions. I do not think there is interest in the WG for changing the name. I think the name CropTarget will end up sticking, and not produce a compat risk. Sync vs. async cropTarget creation seems like something you'd want to > decide on before shipping. It is something we have tried reaching consensus on. But I am not observing convergence. I proposed the following: - For Chrome, it is important to use a Promise<CropTarget>. - For any browser that does not feel a Promise is necessary, they can immediately return a pre-resolved Promise<CropTarget>. - Web-developers would be virtually unaffected by the addition of a Promise even - for the sake of argument - if it isn't strictly necessary. (I still think it is necessary.) You mentioned on the thread that the browser can refuse to mint new > cropTargets in some cases. What happens then? Is it specified? How are > developers supposed to defensively program their API use against that? Failure to mint additional tokens happens if excessive tokens are minted. (Defends against memory-overuse in the browser process.) Failure is reflected by a Promise being rejected rather than fulfilled - which is an established pattern and well-understood by Web-developers. If minting couldn't fail, then (naively) writing the process/origin<->token > mapping in the browser process could've been done async, while the creation > of the token could be sync. That is an interesting alternative; thank you for suggesting it. I have given it thought, and I see some issues with it. To start with, an application could be given a "dead" token. Such a token will never be useful, but the application would not be able detect that until it calls cropTo(token), and that call fails. Then, this failure would only be detected by inspecting the error returned by cropTo(). But note that often, produceCropTarget() and cropTo() are called by different documents, so now we even need to postMessage() back a message that "your call to produceCropTarget didn't really work, you have a dead token." So, if minting itself fails, that's preferable in two ways: 1. The failure is recognized closer to the actual point of failure. (And detected by the concerned entity.) 2. The application might even wish to *forego calling getDisplayMedia()* if it knows it's got a bad token (or rather - no token). 3. The application is *not* left holding a "dead" token. Instead, it holds a rejected Promise<CropTarget> - an established pattern for failed async-construction. 4. If the conditions that caused minting to fail change, then it's clear that calling produceCropTarget() again might work. (Whereas a dead token raises a question - is it *now* OK to use, or should we produce a new non-dead token?) Does that make sense? This seems mostly like a developer ergonomics question. As such, (and like > above) a signal from web developers could go a long way to break the tie. One of my partners from Google Slides has commented <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11#issuecomment-1076543965> as much. She prefers the approach we took - MediaDevices.produceCropTarget. (No Web-developers have mentioned a preference for the other approach - Element.produceCropTarget.) On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:01 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 9:15:21 PM UTC+1 Elad Alon wrote: > >> P.S: Requesting to ship gaplessly. >> >> On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 9:13:30 PM UTC+1 Elad Alon wrote: >> >>> Contact emailselad...@chromium.org, mfo...@chromium.org, >>> jop...@chromium.org >>> >>> Explainerhttps://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/blob/main/README.md >>> >>> Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/ >>> >>> Summary >>> >>> We introduce a performant and robust API for cropping a self-capture >>> video track. (Recall that applications may *already* video-capture the tab >>> in which the application is run using getDisplayMedia(). Using our new >>> Region Capture, such an application may now *crop* that track and remove >>> some content from it; typically before sharing it remotely.) >>> >>> >>> Blink componentBlink >>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink> >>> >>> TAG reviewhttps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/710 >>> >>> TAG review statusNot applicable >>> TAG was positive: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we >>> are happy to see this proposal move forward." >>> They did suggest a change of name (Region Capture -> Tab Region >>> Capture), but that does not affect the API. This proposal to refine the >>> name will be brought up with the WG. >>> >>> Risks >>> >>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>> >>> Remaining open issues with Mozilla and Apple: >>> >> > Thanks for summing up the open issues! :) > >> >>> - The name "CropTarget" - see >>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/18. No alternative >>> has yet been presented which garnered more support than "CropTarget". >>> This >>> seems unlikely to change. >>> >>> It may be better to ask actual web developers regarding the least > confusing option amongst those proposed. > In the past I've used Twitter polls and developer surveys for that > purpose. Is this something you considered? > Maybe devrel folks can help on that front. > >> >>> - Whether produceCropTarget should return a Promise<CropTarget> or a >>> CropTarget - see https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/17. >>> In internal discussions we have consensus that returning a Promise is >>> preferrable. However, if the WG settles on returning a CropTarget >>> directly, >>> a migration plan would be needed to ensure Web applications are not >>> broken. >>> This would be easier if such a change is either not made at all, or is >>> made >>> in concert with the next bullet-point. >>> >>> Sync vs. async cropTarget creation seems like something you'd want to > decide on before shipping. You mentioned on the thread that the browser can > refuse to mint new cropTargets in some cases. What happens then? Is it > specified? How are developers supposed to defensively program their API use > against that? > If minting couldn't fail, then (naively) writing the > process/origin<->token mapping in the browser process could've been done > async, while the creation of the token could be sync. > > >>> - API surface of produceCropTarget - see >>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11. We want >>> MediaDevices.produceCropTarget(), whereas Apple wants >>> Element.produceCropTarget or possibly Element.cropTarget(). Should the WG >>> settle on Apple's current preference, migration would be very easy, as we >>> can first expose on the new surface *in addition* and then deprecate the >>> old surface gradually. Moreover, such a migration would actually have the >>> potential of making a (Promise<CropTarget> -> CropTarget) migration >>> simpler, should such a change also be adopted by the WG. >>> >>> This seems mostly like a developer ergonomics question. As such, (and > like above) a signal from web developers could go a long way to break the > tie. > >> Other topics under discussion mostly deal with changes to spec-language, >>> and will not affect the shipped API. Exception - serializability, but that >>> wouldn't break Web-apps (since it's mostly opaque to the application, which >>> would typically only postMessage the CropTarget and use it on the other >>> side). >>> >>> *Gecko:* No signal ( >>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/621) See above >>> clarification about remaining open issues under discussion. >>> >>> *WebKit:* No signal ( >>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2022-March/032157.html) See >>> above clarification about remaining open issues under discussion. >>> >>> *Web developers:* Strongly positive This work saw strong support from >>> Web developers inside of Google (Meet, Docs, Slides). >>> >>> Other signals: >>> >>> Ergonomics >>> >>> N/A >>> >>> >>> Activation >>> >>> Unchallenging to use. >>> >>> >>> Security >>> >>> This is a mechanism by which an application purposefully strips away >>> information which it already has access to (via pre-existing mechanisms >>> such as getDisplayMedia). >>> >>> >>> WebView Application Risks >>> >>> N/A >>> >>> >>> >>> Debuggability >>> >>> - >>> >>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>> ?No >>> >>> Flag nameRegionCapture >>> >>> Tracking bug >>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1247761 >>> >>> Launch bughttps://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1168076 >>> >>> Sample linkshttps://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/demo/ >>> >>> Estimated milestones >>> OriginTrial desktop last 101 >>> OriginTrial desktop first 98 >>> >>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5712447794053120 >>> >>> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to prototype: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/dib14W1B0Xc >>> Intent to Experiment: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/yFUX0KfuUlo >>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/ZqndGb9e1wM >>> >>> >>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMO6jDM0kKeZxTXwZmhYL3cQDH4DU8aukcu7qky29man_xSHjQ%40mail.gmail.com.
