https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 is still ongoing, so I think we should just wait until it's settled in the next CSSWG call.
In this case, there's been (continues to be) multi-vendor input in the CSSWG, and the IntersectionObserver naming <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317#issuecomment-1149949799> has been raised. If members of the TAG want to influence the naming, I think they should weigh in on that issue. If they have a recommendation after the CSSWG has settled the issue, I wouldn't expect the CSSWG to change it again. But at this point, let's wait for the CSSWG. On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:29 PM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> wrote: > I'm happy for a clearer name if that's the result of the CSS WG > discussion, and we do timeout on the TAG from time to time, but maybe we > can ask them to review quickly? I'll ping Rossen. > > Regardless, given that we are still going to be the first to ship, we have > to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Won't block this > intent if others are fine to ship w/ whatever resolution to the naming > debate happens, but it's an example of a recurring pattern out of the CSS > WG (and a few other WGs) that Blink doesn't accept: our process isn't happy > to launch without appropriate horizontal review when things are risky. > Sometimes we can truncate reviews because we aren't out in front and > there's low risk of first-mover disadvantage, but in cases like this where > there are no signals from other vendors, the risks of being wrong are > pronounced: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z83L6xa1tw > > In these cases, it's always great to ask if we can go to OT and ship > gaplessly if reviews come back green. > > Thoughts? > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> >> 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 <chris...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt < >>>>>> foo...@chromium.org> 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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>> >> 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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYcN79eXZ_jhNhGeV6e_ENmc1sBQ_Hw%3DATWwk%3DhFsKjF1A%40mail.gmail.com.
