On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:09 PM Rune Lillesveen <futh...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 11:40 AM Rune Lillesveen <futh...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We have an incoming issue for jQuery that seems pretty serious for them: >> > > An update on the impact for jQuery: > > https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/5098#issuecomment-1235351545 > There was an issue filed for the CSSWG https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676 https://crbug.com/1358953 >> >> The problem is that jQuery uses the native implementation of :has() when >> present, but the feature detection detects support for other custom jQuery >> selectors inside :has() because of :has() accepting forgiving selectors. >> >> It should be possible to fix this for jQuery, but the problem is for >> existing content which relies on this feature detection. >> >> The reason why this was not detected when Safari shipped :has(), is that >> Safari does not accept <forgiving-relative-selector-list> like the spec >> says. I have filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244708 >> against WebKit. >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:57 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> LGTM3, once the implementation aligns with the WG decisions, there are >>> tests, and the corresponding spec PRs have landed. >>> >>> Congratulations to all who worked on this feature! I think it's a great >>> addition to the platform that developers will really like. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 1:25 AM Daniel Bratell <bratel...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> LGTM2 >>>> >>>> /Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2022-06-02 10:05, Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for the update! >>>> >>>> LGTM1 to ship, once we're aligned with the spec and WG decisions. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:25 AM Byungwoo Lee <b...@igalia.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is an update! >>>>> >>>>> 1. All the :has() related issues have been resolved in CSSWG >>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2022Jun/0003.html>. >>>>> (Thanks to everyone who arranged and discussed!) >>>>> >>>>> #6399 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6399> Remove the >>>>> :scope dependency from the relative selectors definition () >>>>> -> Remove special handling of :scope in relative selectors >>>>> generally >>>>> #6952 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6952> Consider >>>>> disallowing logical combination pseudo-classes inside :has() >>>>> -> Disallow nesting :has() inside :has() >>>>> #7280 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7280> Detecting >>>>> :has() restrictions >>>>> -> @supports uses non-forgiving parsing for all selectors >>>>> #6845 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6845> Consider >>>>> disallowing :has() outside the rightmost compound >>>>> -> Close no change >>>>> #7211 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7211> Consider >>>>> disallowing :scope inside :has() >>>>> -> Closed as a duplicate of #6399 (continues to be allowed >>>>> inside :has()) >>>>> #7212 <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7212> Consider >>>>> disallowing :host, :host(), :host-context() inside :has() >>>>> -> No change; :host etc. continues to be allowed inside :has() >>>>> >>>>> 2. Chrome implementation has already followed the above >>>>> resolutions. >>>>> Currently, :has() works as expected based on the spec and the >>>>> above resolved results. >>>>> The only bug that remains is about some invalidation cases for >>>>> logical combinations inside :has() (bug 1331207 >>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1331207>), >>>>> and I prepared CLs to fix the bug. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if there is any other considerations. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/20/22 14:49, Byungwoo Lee wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the reply! >>>>> >>>>> To address the issues, I've added a comment based on the latest >>>>> communication in this thread. >>>>> - >>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7211#issuecomment-1132432496 >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps to solve the issues. >>>>> >>>>> 2022년 5월 19일 목요일 오전 7시 50분 52초 UTC+9에 Chris Harrelson님이 작성: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Byungwoo, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be better to resolve the referenced issues at the >>>>>> CSSWG, including aspects Antti mentioned here, before shipping. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:05 AM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/18/22 17:33, Antti Koivisto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 9:19:03 AM UTC+3 bl...@igalia.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/17/22 03:17, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/16/22 11:05, Byungwoo Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are 4 open issues posted on the csswg draft. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Remove scope dependency from relative selectors definition: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6399 >>>>>>>> * Disallowing logical combination pseudo classes inside ':has()': >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6952 >>>>>>>> * Disallowing ':scope' inside ':has()': >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7211 >>>>>>>> * Disallowing ':host', ':host()', ':host-context()' inside >>>>>>>> ':has()': >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7212 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It'd be great to get resolution on these issues before shipping, >>>>>>>> IMO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In general, given how the usefulness of this feature relies on >>>>>>>> browser engines having predictable performance (the feature is useless >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> WebKit or Firefox get cases fast that Chrome gets slow or vice-versa), >>>>>>>> it'd >>>>>>>> be great to document in the spec some of these limitations and the >>>>>>>> reasoning for them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the above 4 issues are essentially related to the case of >>>>>>>> ':is()' inside ':has()'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The dependency between the 4 issues can be summarized as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - To avoid increasing invalidation complexity, disallow ':is()' >>>>>>>> or ':where()' inside ':has()' (#6952) >>>>>>>> - ':scope' inside ':has()' has the same (or worse) problem >>>>>>>> as ':is()' inside ':has()', so disallow ':scope' inside ':has()' >>>>>>>> (#7211) >>>>>>>> - After ':scope' is disallowed inside ':has()', we can >>>>>>>> keep the current definition of absolutizing with ':scope' >>>>>>>> because ':scope' >>>>>>>> will not be used explicitly inside the ':has()' (#6399) >>>>>>>> - ':host', ':host()', ':host-context()' is meaningless >>>>>>>> unless it is used with ':scope' inside ':has()' (#7212) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ':is()' inside ':has()' case is the start of the 4 issues, and >>>>>>>> most engines seems to agree to disallow the ':is()' inside ':has()' >>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>> now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If so, I think it would be OK to ship to Chrome with explicit >>>>>>>> limitations for the above cases even if those issues are not yet >>>>>>>> addressed >>>>>>>> in the spec. How do you think about this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> WebKit does not disallow :is() inside :has() and I don't see a >>>>>>> particular reason to. While not very useful it does not increase >>>>>>> complexity >>>>>>> over :not() inside :has() (which is supported and people have found >>>>>>> useful). The only current limitation with logical combinator >>>>>>> pseudo-classes >>>>>>> is disallowing :has() nested inside :has() (which increases complexity a >>>>>>> lot without enabling anything useful). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> antti >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think I misunderstood that the option of disallowing ':is()' >>>>>>> inside ':has()' is still alive. Also I overlooked that ':not()' inside >>>>>>> ':has()' has the same problem as ':is()' inside ':has()'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I communicated with Antti about the above limitations, and we both >>>>>>> agreed these: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Positive on disallowing explicit ':scope' inside ':has()' >>>>>>> since ':has()' has an implicit scope. >>>>>>> - Positive on disallowing ':has()' inside ':has()' since it can >>>>>>> increase complexity a lot. >>>>>>> - Should allow ':is()'/':where()' inside ':has() since: >>>>>>> - we should consider ':is()', ':where()', ':not()' as a whole >>>>>>> in terms of complexity, >>>>>>> - those cases (especially ':not()') enables useful cases >>>>>>> - invalidation performance will not be great but also it will >>>>>>> not be different compared to some other worst cases >>>>>>> - both WebKit and Chrome haven't considered some invalidation >>>>>>> cases, (https://codepen.io/byung-woo/pen/vYdxPMa) but fixing >>>>>>> the bug will not be very complex or difficult. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on this consensus, I'm going to allow ':is()' and ':where()' >>>>>>> inside ':has()' before shipping. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bug pointed at above will *not* be fixed before shipping. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since it is positive to disallow explicit ':scope' inside ':has()', >>>>>>> I think disallowing ':host()' inside ':has()' is still reasonable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Byungwoo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b8aba55a-2ea6-4b75-bf13-f04e27661938%40igalia.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b8aba55a-2ea6-4b75-bf13-f04e27661938%40igalia.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/4af7fbf5-1bf5-4c51-b82c-6d01e2c61634n%40chromium.org >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4af7fbf5-1bf5-4c51-b82c-6d01e2c61634n%40chromium.org?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/b7f0fddb-cf49-5d4d-55ea-592f7a7578d5%40igalia.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b7f0fddb-cf49-5d4d-55ea-592f7a7578d5%40igalia.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/CAL5BFfXap%3DKEvkQgr2ZZRtXPNFJvm1xJfRG%2Bdje7aH56obdU0g%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXap%3DKEvkQgr2ZZRtXPNFJvm1xJfRG%2Bdje7aH56obdU0g%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/CAOMQ%2Bw-YkwgDK0F_zMQN4R3sZECCd3vT5-y2-mvDCvM%2BGX_HhQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw-YkwgDK0F_zMQN4R3sZECCd3vT5-y2-mvDCvM%2BGX_HhQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> Rune Lillesveen >> >> > > -- > Rune Lillesveen > > -- Rune Lillesveen -- 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/CACuPfeRQ5VMSXJTEVXjPttX2dS2M4Ad822oZtigH-dh9AJe4ww%40mail.gmail.com.
