On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Chris! > > I think that we should ship this with whatever name the CSS WG can agree > on. Do you know when this will be discussed, and do you think we should > wait until after that meeting to approve this? > It's on the CSSWG agenda for tomorrow. Let's wait for that group's decision on the name, after which I personally would feel comfortable shipping (though I'm recused as an API owner on this thread, since I am involved in the feature). > > Best regards, > Philip > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:06 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It looks like the TAG was prodded, since the "2022-06-13-week" >>>>> milestone was just added to >>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/734. >>>>> >>>>> However, I don't think it's reasonable for us to keep waiting for the >>>>> TAG until mid-June when this proposal already had plenty of input from >>>>> other vendors in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6850. >>>>> >>>>> This API checks the synchronously available state to determine if the >>>>> element is going to be hidden in the next frame, but it doesn't >>>>> determine if it's really visible like Intersection Observer. That >>>>> seems like a useful thing to have. >>>> >>>> >>>> The useful thing is: >>>> * Reliably detect visibility according to some basic semantics that are >>>> common to test for (use cases listed in the issue) >>>> * Provide a performant way to detect content-visibility:hidden >>>> >>>> >>>>> However, the bits involving inert >>>>> and aria-hidden do seem a bit out of place for something called >>>>> isVisible, to me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> These two are no longer part of the proposal. >>>> >>> >>> Inert still is, see >>> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-isvisible. Was there >>> agreement to drop that, but it didn't happen yet? >>> >> >> Yes. This issue <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7274> tracks >> it, just needs spec edits. >> >> I've also opened an issue >> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317> to discuss whether >> isHidden is a better name than isVisible and added to the CSSWG agenda. >> >> >> > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw-d7W8Wpug%3Dci7-p6Kf%3D1DgO_MCKmigtX2Wr1bObOj-Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
