Hi, While Alex's concerns are totally valid to consider from a feature design perspective, I think they are better to be discussed on the WHATWG issues for this feature. I chatted offline with Alex and he agreed about that point, and agreed to post comments and questions there.
So from an API owners perspective LGTM1 modulo considering and taking into account all comments and feedback from Alex on the spec (as we should for all such feedback from anyone, of course!). On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:28 AM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > 2023年10月4日(水) 8:16 Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org>: > >> >> >> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:16:53 AM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: >> >> >> >> 2023年10月2日(月) 10:11 Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org>: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 5:01 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >> The implicit behaviours based on construction order in this API are very >> strange and seem like footguns. >> >> >> I don't understand why you find this strange, or a footgun. It's intended >> to be the opposite: it guides developers toward creating the experience the >> user expects, where when the user requests to close something, the last >> thing that was opened, is what closes. >> >> >> Chris Palmer covered this pretty well recently, so I'll defer to his more >> eloquent writeup: >> >> https://noncombatant.org/2023/05/29/complexities-of-allocation/ >> >> Basically, this is spooky action at a distance and without _at least_ >> some reflection and manipulation surface (via DOM, probably), it's hard to >> understand how this won't turn into a footgun. >> >> As a separate note, I'm disappointed in the proliferation of APIs that >> affect DOM but have no API and reflection. Import Maps spring to mind, but >> there are other recent examples too. If manual disposal is going to be >> required for this, we should at least make it possible to introspect >> outside the scope in which an object that defines this behaviour is >> allocated. >> >> >> In what way does this API affect the DOM? No parts of the DOM tree are >> modified by CloseWatcher. The same is true for import maps... >> >> >> This is view state, which is frequently reflected via DOM. The primary >> concern here is that there's no way to inspect and/or modify the stack >> (attached to Node instances or not) independently of closure-scoped object >> lifetimes. >> > > It's not clear to me what definition of "view state" you are using, such > that it encompasses things like the module specifier resolution algorithm > or the routing of Android back gestures. > > Maybe, if this is a principle you believe in, you could file it as a > suggestion on the w3ctag/design-principles repository, ideally with a clear > explanation of what the boundaries of this "view state" concept are. > (Including what, in your view, would *not* quality as view state.) > > >> >> The TAG feedback didn't touch on this very much, AFAICT, but it's >> somewhat surprising that the stack of close actions isn't inspectable. >> >> >> I can't speak for the TAG, but here are the reasons why the stack of >> close watchers isn't inspectable: >> >> - We received no developer or partner feedback requesting this >> capability >> - This could cause potential forward-compat problems without careful >> design. E.g., it could make it possible for developers to write code that >> assumes that only CloseWatchers, dialogs, and popover="" elements are >> close >> watchers, and thus make it hard for the web platform to introduce a fourth >> close watcher (e.g., <selectlist>) in the future. >> - This would be somewhat of an encapsulation leak between different >> parts of the application, making it harder to write resilient components. >> (This is not a strong argument, but rather a bias toward waiting for a use >> case instead of just exposing the information automatically.) >> >> Thanks, I appreciate the context, and I am impressed by the thoroughness >> of the design artifacts. >> >> >> What's the behaviour of non-`destroy()`'d watchers; e.g. if a developer >> forgets to dispose of one correctly? Can users get stuck? >> >> >> Non-destroy()ed is the default state of a CloseWatcher, so such >> CloseWatchers will respond to the next close request if they are on the top >> of the stack. The user cannot really get stuck, as every close request will >> either destroy the topmost close watcher on the stack, or possibly trigger >> (at most once) a preventDefault()ed cancel event. See >> https://github.com/WICG/close-watcher/blob/main/README.md#abuse-analysis >> for more details. >> >> >> Also helpful; thank you! >> >> >> Note that the API generally guides you away from this possibility by >> making the simpler code be the one that automatically calls destroy() for >> you: https://github.com/WICG/close-watcher/blob/main/README. >> md#requesting-close-yourself . >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:43:49 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >> Contact emailsjap...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium.org, jarhar@chromium. >> org >> >> Explainerhttps://github.com/WICG/close-watcher/blob/main/README.md >> >> Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9462 >> >> Summary >> >> "Close requests" are a new concept that encompasses user requests to >> close something currently open, using the Esc key on desktop or the back >> gesture/button on Android. Integrating them into Chromium comes with two >> changes: * CloseWatcher, a new API for directly listening and responding to >> close requests. * Upgrades to <dialog> and popover="" to use the new close >> request framework, so that they respond to the Android back button. >> >> >> Blink componentBlink >> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink> >> >> TAG reviewhttps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/594 >> >> TAG review statusIssues addressed >> >> Risks >> >> >> Interoperability and Compatibility >> >> This API is designed to have an interoperable surface for web developers, >> to help them avoid platform-specific code. So, if it were implemented >> across browsers, it would be a positive for interoperability. Otherwise, it >> has the usual risks of not getting adopted by other vendors. Compatibility: >> To avoid allowing CloseWatchers, dialogs, and popovers ("close watchers") >> to prevent the Android back gesture/button from navigating through history, >> how close watchers respond to close requests depends on user activation. If >> no user activation occurs between opening, and the user issuing a close >> request, this can cause a CloseWatcher/dialog's cancel event to be skipped, >> or cause multiple close watchers to be closed at once. Although this >> behavior is meant to prevent back-trapping on Android specifically, it >> applies to desktop as well, for interoperability reasons. This change is a >> compatibility risk. However, use counters show it to be an acceptable one: >> - 0.000015% of pages impacted by skipped cancel events - 0.000007% of pages >> impacted by skipped cancel events that would otherwise call >> preventDefault() - between 0.000000% and 0.000001% of pages impacted by >> multiple dialogs closed >> >> >> *Gecko*: Positive (https://github.com/mozilla/st >> andards-positions/issues/604) >> >> *WebKit*: No signal (https://github.com/WebKit/sta >> ndards-positions/issues/215) >> >> *Web developers*: Positive (https://github.com/w3ctag/des >> ign-reviews/issues/594#issuecomment-890257686) See also >> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1319915 >> >> *Other signals*: >> >> Activation >> >> The CloseWatcher API is meant to be usable as a progressive enhancement; >> if developers use it with feature detection, then their app will be able to >> watch for unusual close watchers in supporting browsers, while falling back >> to listening for the Esc key in browsers that haven't implemented the API. >> It would benefit from a conditional polyfill that translates the Esc key >> into a close signal, so that then developers don't even have to have >> feature detection and fallback logic, but can just use the CloseWatcher API >> surface. One such polyfill is available in the demo: >> https://close-watcher-demo.glitch.me/ >> >> >> Security >> >> The main security-related concern in this API is preventing it from being >> usable for back-trapping, i.e. disabling the Android back gesture/button. >> Although this is already possible in Chromium and other browsers due to >> bugs, we worked to ensure CloseWatcher and close request integration to >> dialogs/popups does not increase the size of the problem, by gating >> repeated use of these behind transient user activation checks: see >> https://github.com/WICG/close-watcher#abuse-analysis >> >> >> 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? >> >> Beyond the low risks already listed in the Compat section, we do not >> anticipate any WebView-specific risks. A base::Feature killswitch is >> available just in case. >> >> >> Debuggability >> >> No special DevTools support is required. >> >> >> 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://flagsCloseWatcher >> >> Finch feature nameCloseWatcher >> >> Requires code in //chrome?False >> >> Tracking bughttps://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1171318 >> >> Non-OSS dependencies >> >> Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open >> source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? >> No. >> >> Sample links >> https://close-watcher-demo.glitch.me >> >> Estimated milestonesShipping on desktop119DevTrial on desktop97Shipping >> on Android119DevTrial on Android97Shipping on WebView119 >> >> 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 Statushttps://chromestatus.com/ >> feature/4722261258928128 >> >> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to prototype: https://groups. >> google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/NA5NC16OmsU >> >> 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/CAM0wra-SULEU6D-HmDDuf%3D5T9faNVk_LcqjKxY%3Do%3Du-vqTzaag%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra-SULEU6D-HmDDuf%3D5T9faNVk_LcqjKxY%3Do%3Du-vqTzaag%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%2Bw8HS46rmnBy6Vg99eyfTjeSOkDMDvde%3DS3w%3D14i04Y%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
