The CSSWG has resolved to rename the method to checkVisibility: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:36 AM Philip Jägenstedt <foo...@chromium.org> wrote: > 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/CAK6btwLVy%2B1Z0rR%2BmNf9Oes%3D5P5TRP9OenzqMzZJOjqFMHK8qA%40mail.gmail.com.
