> I'd like to understand better how we wound up shipping :--foo and then having the CSSWG ask us to change it to :state(foo) instead, and what we could do in the future to avoid it happening again.
I think if this was specced before shipping that would have been better and is a practice that I (and we?) currently follow, but this was shipped a number of years ago. > As far as I can see, nobody asked for the ergonomic evidence that https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/#browser-engine-reviews says we can expect after Chrome has shipped a feature. This was my bad, I didn't realize or didn't completely consider usecounters before I presented the name change to the CSSWG. I am hoping that with an answer from the API owners, I can go back to the CSSWG and potentially change it back. There is still no merged spec in HTML or CSS for this feature yet, but I have open PRs in both specs. On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:00 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@chromium.org> wrote: > +1 on the API owners discussing this. > > I'd like to understand better how we wound up shipping :--foo and then > having the CSSWG ask us to change it to :state(foo) instead, and what we > could do in the future to avoid it happening again. > > It looks like the initial proposal was :state(foo); the CSSWG asked to > change it to :--foo in 2020 > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-591547956>; > we shipped that in M90 in 2021 > <https://chromestatus.com/feature/6537562418053120> (with a feature entry > that still says :state 🙃); then Ryosuke suggested undoing that change in > January 2023 > <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467#issuecomment-1381645661>, and > the CSSWG accepted that suggestion in August > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980>. > As far as I can see, nobody asked for the ergonomic evidence that > https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/#browser-engine-reviews > says we can expect after Chrome has shipped a feature. It doesn't seem like > this feature was so contentious that the team needed to use a name change > as a bargaining chip, so we should probably have insisted on more evidence > before agreeing with the change. Maybe that's still a "should" instead of a > "should have": Joey's second email > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/JvpHoUfhJYE/m/wPAHJzIvAQAJ> > might > say that the CSSWG's resolution > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980> > about this isn't as committed as it appears to an external observer? > > Should we generally hold off on shipping CSS features until they land in > an official draft, or even in a CR? Should we be clearer to the CSSWG when > we decide to ship ahead of their consensus that the bar for changes is > going up? There's not good support for this kind of per-WG restriction in > Chrome Status yet, but maybe it'll fit near > https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/3390... > > Jeffrey > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:32 PM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> hrm, this is another instance of bikeshedding after shipping, and I'm not >> inclined to approve. Perhaps we can discuss at next week's API OWNERs >> meeting? >> >> Adding others who I know are interested in this topic. >> >> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:16:13 AM UTC-7 Joey Arhar wrote: >> >>> The spec for the new syntax hasn't been merged yet, I haven't finished >>> implementing it in chromium yet, and I don't have estimated milestones yet, >>> but I'd like to get the API owners thoughts on whether this deprecation >>> would be acceptable to help guide the spec discussion. >>> >>> I did some analysis of the top 8 websites on the chromestatus entry to >>> see what the breakage would be like: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHoO12ts0E-NQQH9AMwR2sKAIV0OPB-FA_8QXMpolz0/edit?usp=sharing >>> I found that most of them had the affected custom elements behind >>> display:none rules that I had to manually remove in order to use them. >>> There was only one website where there was actual breakage by default, in >>> which case the carousel buttons didn't work on firefox and safari. If the >>> new syntax is just for the CSS property and we keep CustomStateSet the >>> same, then the affected website's buttons would continue to work but >>> whatever custom styles they have (which I couldn't trigger) wouldn't apply >>> anymore. >>> >>> Personally, I think that this breakage would not be bad especially if we >>> keep CustomStateSet the same, and I kind of like :state(foo) more than >>> :--foo. However, I might have not made it clear in the spec discussions yet >>> that we have already shipped :--foo by default for several years. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:15 AM Joey Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Contact emailsjar...@chromium.org >>>> >>>> ExplainerNone >>>> >>>> Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467 >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> CSS custom state, which allows custom elements to expose their own >>>> pseudo-classes, was shipped here: >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/dJibhmzE73o/m/VT-NceIhAAAJ >>>> >>>> This feature has not been implemented in gecko or webkit yet. I >>>> recently made an effort to spec this feature in CSSWG and WHATWG, but there >>>> was pushback to change the syntax back from :--foo to :state(foo), and the >>>> CSSWG has resolved to do this as well: >>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805 >>>> >>>> The UseCounter is currently at 0.03% >>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3796 >>>> >>>> This deprecation will have a window where we support both the old >>>> syntax and the new syntax so websites can switch to the new one. >>>> >>>> >>>> Blink componentBlink>HTML>CustomElements >>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EHTML%3ECustomElements> >>>> >>>> TAG reviewNone >>>> >>>> TAG review statusNot applicable >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> >>>> >>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>> >>>> Websites which are currently using the old syntax and don't migrate to >>>> the new syntax will have CSS selectors which become invalid which would >>>> impact the styling of their custom elements. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>> >>>> *WebKit*: No signal ( >>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467#issuecomment-1381645661) >>>> >>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>> >>>> *Other signals*: >>>> >>>> Activation >>>> >>>> Switching to the new syntax should be quite easy. >>>> >>>> >>>> WebView application risks >>>> >>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> >>>> Debuggability >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> >>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?Yes >>>> >>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>> ?Yes >>>> >>>> Flag name on chrome://flagsNone >>>> >>>> Finch feature nameNone >>>> >>>> Non-finch justificationNone >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome?False >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> >>>> No milestones specified >>>> >>>> >>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>> >>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >>>> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >>>> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >>>> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of >>>> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>> None >>>> >>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5140610730426368 >>>> >>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>> >>> -- 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/CAK6btwKZixsRFkiLgoHLF9BS17aWDpuR%2BA13toSmgjyFnop%3Diw%40mail.gmail.com.
