Given the answer, I agree with Yoav that it'd be better to forget about this thread and start a new one when things are ready to ship.
Thanks, Rego On 02/12/2022 22:09, Traian Captan wrote: > Hi Rego, > > Thank you for your message! > > > This issue has been bugging devs since 2016. > > > > I'm landing a patch > > <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4063134 > <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4063134>> to > > unprefix -webkit-image-set which will expose the current image-set > > functionality without needing the '-webkit-' prefix. > I don't think this is the right way to move this topic. 3 LGTMs from > 2016 shouldn't be enough to land the change without a previous notice on > this thread. > > Sorry about that, it was meant more as an FYI on the old thread since > there was no follow up after the LGTMs and the issue is still open. > I will create a new Chrome status entry and send out a brand new email > about it. > > > > > To address the compat issue, if both prefixed and standard versions are > > defined in the right order, > > and the standard version fails parsing, Chrome will fallback to the > > prefixed version. > > The `image-set-fallback` test has been added to verify this behavior. > > Unprefixing image-set fixes 2 of the failing subtests of the > > image-set-parsing WPT test > > > <https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-images/image-set/image-set-parsing.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=image-set-parsing > > <https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-images/image-set/image-set-parsing.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=image-set-parsing>> > > > > As a follow up, I will investigate whether we can fix the remaining > > compat issues. > > How is the interop with WebKit and Firefox implementations? > According to MDN Firefox added support for -webkit-image-set() in > version 90, so it'd be nice that this change is in alignment too. > > WebKit and Firefox support both prefixed and unprefixed versions. > I am not removing the prefixed version, only adding the possibility of > using the current functionality without needing the `-webkit-` prefix. > > > > What's the status of WPT tests? Why only 2 subtests are getting fixed > with this change? Are there plans to fix the rest? > > For the image-set-parsing test, Firefox is passing 46/50, Safari 37/50 > and Chrome 20/50 (22 with my patch). > For the overall WPT tests for image-set > <https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-images/image-set?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=image-set>, > Firefox is passing 71/77, Safari 50/77 and Chrome 23/77 (25 with my patch). > We only pass 2 more tests because we are only exposing the current > implemented functionality not adding any new functionality with this patch. > I will follow up with additional fixes for some of the other issues. > > > Do we have use counters for both the prefixed and uprefixed versions to > see if we can get rid of them in the future? > > Yes, we have counters for both, but I don't think we can get rid of the > prefixed version, as there were talks about adding the prefixed version > to the spec: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6285 > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6285> > > I guess we should also update things at: > https://chromestatus.com/feature/5432024223449088 > <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5432024223449088> > > I'll send a brand new one. > > > And probably notify MDN so it can get updated if the prefix is no longer > needed in any browser. > > Good idea. > > Regards, > Traian > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:57 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas <r...@igalia.com > <mailto:r...@igalia.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 01/12/2022 00:59, Traian Captan wrote: > > This issue has been bugging devs since 2016. > > > > I'm landing a patch > > <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4063134 > <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4063134>> to > > unprefix -webkit-image-set which will expose the current image-set > > functionality without needing the '-webkit-' prefix. > I don't think this is the right way to move this topic. 3 LGTMs from > 2016 shouldn't be enough to land the change without a previous notice on > this thread. > > > To address the compat issue, if both prefixed and standard > versions are > > defined in the right order, > > and the standard version fails parsing, Chrome will fallback to the > > prefixed version. > > The `image-set-fallback` test has been added to verify this behavior. > > Unprefixing image-set fixes 2 of the failing subtests of the > > image-set-parsing WPT test > > > > <https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-images/image-set/image-set-parsing.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=image-set-parsing > > <https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-images/image-set/image-set-parsing.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=image-set-parsing>> > > > > As a follow up, I will investigate whether we can fix the remaining > > compat issues. > > How is the interop with WebKit and Firefox implementations? > According to MDN Firefox added support for -webkit-image-set() in > version 90, so it'd be nice that this change is in alignment too. > > What's the status of WPT tests? Why only 2 subtests are getting fixed > with this change? Are there plans to fix the rest? > > Do we have use counters for both the prefixed and uprefixed versions to > see if we can get rid of them in the future? > > I guess we should also update things at: > https://chromestatus.com/feature/5432024223449088 > <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5432024223449088> > > And probably notify MDN so it can get updated if the prefix is no longer > needed in any browser. > > Cheers, > Rego > > > > > Regards, > > Traian > > > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:51:03 AM UTC-7 dgla...@google.com > <mailto:dgla...@google.com> wrote: > > > > LGTM3 + investigate the syntax issue mentioned by PhistucK. > > > > :DG< > > > > > > On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 5:06:06 PM UTC-7, Dru Knox wrote: > > > > Is this blocked on API owner feedback? > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:47 AM PhistucK > <phis...@gmail.com <mailto:phis...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > It has come to my attention in comment 5 > > > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597#c5 > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597#c5>> that > the standard syntax is a superset of the Blink syntax. > > > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation> > > > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation>> > > > > Blink supports - > > background-image: image-set( url("foo.png") 1x, > > url("foo-2x.png") 2x, > > url("foo-print.png") 3x ); > > > > The standard supports this - > > background-image: image-set( "foo.png" 1x, > > url("foo-2x.png") 2x, > > "foo-print.png" 600dpi ); > > Basically, you do not need url("..."), you can enter > it as a > > string without the url() function. Also, the > resolution part > > supports more than just #x. > > > > I do not have Safari, but according to the unprefixing > > layout test, it looks like it does not support the > standard > > syntax as well. > > > > Should the standard syntax be dropped? Can you talk to > > WebKit and see if they intend to implement the > standard syntax? > > > > > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Chris Harrelson > > <chri...@chromium.org <mailto:chri...@chromium.org>> > wrote: > > > > LGTM2 > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > > <foo...@chromium.org <mailto:foo...@chromium.org>> > wrote: > > > > Easy LGTM1. Given that authors generally > assume that > > prefixed things are aliases and that WebKit > has made > > it just so, whatever problems there might be with > > image-set, the only way to move forward is to > > consider -webkit-image-set as part of the compat > > constraint and navigate accordingly. > > > > When it comes to tests, I guess this (like almost > > all) feature doesn't have a shared test suite that > > we actually use? Nothing > > > in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/tree/master/css-images-3 > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/tree/master/css-images-3> > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/tree/master/css-images-3 > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/tree/master/css-images-3>> and I > don't know where else it would be? > > > > I suspect that contributing to csswg-tests is, > like > > web-platform-tests, not streamlined enough to > > require it for shipping new things, but it > would be > > great if you wanted to take a look at how feasible > > it is in this case. Even just a few reftests > testing > > the very basics would be valuable. > > > > Finally, I wouldn't assume that compat risk is > low. > > When things (like the Fullscreen API...) are > > prefixed only for a very long time, it's actually > > possible that merely unprefixing can break things. > > Let's hope this one works out. > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:59 PM John Mellor > > <joh...@chromium.org > <mailto:joh...@chromium.org>> wrote: > > > > The CSS image-set spec is old, and has a major > > todo > > > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#issue-952b7afb > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#issue-952b7afb>>: it only > supports variations in screen density (1x, 2x, etc), but doesn't yet > allow for selecting images based on viewport width > > <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#viewport-based-selection > > <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#viewport-based-selection>> > like the more modern <img> srcset+sizes attributes > <https://jakearchibald.com/2015/anatomy-of-responsive-images/#varying-size-and-density > > <https://jakearchibald.com/2015/anatomy-of-responsive-images/#varying-size-and-density>>. > Media queries aren't sufficient for this (though they nicely handle the art > direction > <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#art-direction > <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#art-direction>> > use case, so CSS won't additionally need an equivalent to the <picture> and > <source> elements > <https://jakearchibald.com/2015/anatomy-of-responsive-images/#varying-width-density-and-art-direction > > <https://jakearchibald.com/2015/anatomy-of-responsive-images/#varying-width-density-and-art-direction>>). > > > > That said, unprefixed image-set is perhaps > > already a defacto standard (due to websites > > preemptively unprefixing it, and soon Safari > > shipping it), so it's likely that when > selecting > > images based on viewport width eventually gets > > added to CSS images, that will be done by > > extending the image-set syntax in a backwards > > compatible way. > > > > On 8 August 2016 at 08:04, PhistucK > > <phis...@gmail.com > <mailto:phis...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Edge shows positive signs > > > - > https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/cssimageset?filter=f3f0000bf&search=image-set > > <https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/cssimageset?filter=f3f0000bf&search=image-set> > > <https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/cssimageset?filter=f3f0000bf&search=image-set > > <https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/cssimageset?filter=f3f0000bf&search=image-set>>. > > > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Elliott > > Sprehn <esp...@chromium.org > <mailto:esp...@chromium.org>> wrote: > > > > Is our implementation compatible with > > Safari? Is there a test suite? > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2016 10:31 PM, "Sunil Ratnu" > > <sunil...@samsung.com > <mailto:sunil...@samsung.com>> wrote: > > > > *Contact emails > > *sunil...@samsung.com > <mailto:sunil...@samsung.com> > > > > > > > > *Spec* > > > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation> > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#image-set-notation>> > > > > > > > > *Summary* > > Support unprefixed version of > image-set. > > > > > > > > *Motivation* > > Currently blink implementation is > > "webkit" prefixed. Given > Safari also > > recently unprefixed image-set, > > unprefixing can be done > without any > > risk. > > > > Link to the WebKit change: > > > https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202765 > <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202765> > <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202765 > <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202765>> > > > > > > > > *Interoperability and > Compatibility Risk > > *Low. > > Firefox and Edge do not support > > image-set. Only Chrome and Safari > > support it. Safari also has > recently > > unprefixed -webkit-image-set. > > > > > > > > *Ongoing technical constraints > > *None > > > > > > > > *Will this feature be supported on > > all six Blink platforms (Windows, > > Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, > Android, and > > Android WebView)?* > > Yes > > > > > > > > *OWP launch tracking bug* > > Will be using this as > reference bug: > > > https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597 > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597> > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597 > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=630597>> > > > > > > > > *Entry on the feature dashboard* > > No > > > > > > > > *Requesting approval to ship?* > > Yes > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Sunil > > > > -- > > > > 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 > <mailto:blink-dev%2b...@chromium.org>. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > <mailto:blink-dev%2bunsubscr...@chromium.org> > > <mailto:blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org > <mailto:blink-dev%2bunsubscr...@chromium.org>>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/116914db-f380-4590-abbc-5930a8ee77ccn%40chromium.org > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/116914db-f380-4590-abbc-5930a8ee77ccn%40chromium.org> > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/116914db-f380-4590-abbc-5930a8ee77ccn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/116914db-f380-4590-abbc-5930a8ee77ccn%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/96ebf797-a34d-02ef-198f-20afdadd7bcb%40igalia.com.
