*tl;dr:* We expect at most 200 origins could break, and only ~30 of those may be legitimately using the API.
We do track UMA/UKM for the primary API entrypoint function ( GetScreenDetails <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/getScreenDetails>) which we expect nearly all legitimate usage of the API to use. We see 60 unique origins invoking GetScreenDetails, dominated by a handful of origins (which align with the partners we know are using the API). For reference, 2500 unique origins are checking the window-management permission, and 200 unique origins checking the old window-placement permission (82% of those origins are *not *logging any GetScreenDetails calls). As Mike mentioned, the only breakage here would be a site using navigator.permissions.query({name: 'window-placement'}) without error handling which according to UKM data would be roughly 200 origins (at most 18% of those may be legitimately using the API). I believe 200 unique origins is a relatively low number of potential breakages, especially considering our data strongly suggests a majority of that is fingerprinting. Regards, Brad On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 6:27 AM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> wrote: > Agree that the risk feels low... one thing to perhaps check for (if you > have UKM or use counters) is to see if there is any legit usage on sites of > `navigator.permissions.query()` that isn't catching errors, since that will > throw a TypeError and can break a page. > On 2/12/24 9:16 AM, Rick Byers wrote: > > Presumably the risk of legitimate breakage here is bounded by the use of > the Window Management API, right? Are there any UseCounters for the various > Window Management operations? I couldn't find any at a quick glance. I > imagine legitimate usage is dominated by a few sites with an obvious need > (do we have UKM data?), and such sites should always degrade gracefully > without window management capabilities, right? > > My intuition is that the compat risk here should be extremely low, but I > hope we have some data to validate that which isn't tainted by the > fingerprinting usage. > > Rick > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:59 PM Brad Triebwasser <btri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> +blink-dev@chromium.org <blink-dev@chromium.org> / Reply All >> >> Thanks for your feedback, Mike! Recipes inline: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:36 PM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Brad, >>>> On 2/6/24 3:49 PM, Brad Triebwasser wrote: >>>> >>>> Contact emails >>>> >>>> btri...@chromium.org >>>> >>>> Explainer >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3c/window-management/blob/main/EXPLAINER_spec_and_permission_rename.md >>>> >>>> Specification >>>> >>>> https://w3c.github.io/window-management/#api-permission-api-integration >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> Removes the legacy "window-placement" alias for permission and >>>> permission policy "window-management". This is a follow-up to >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5146352391028736 and corresponding >>>> blink-dev PSA >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Hf2b1-S39Uw/m/YAEC_0DSBQAJ>. >>>> The "window-placement" alias has been showing console deprecation warnings >>>> since M113 >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/13204be718225ae09c8ba7e36b055a369c36c878>. >>>> We will disable WindowPlacementPermissionAlias >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/runtime_enabled_features.json5?q=-f:gen%2F%20AND%20-f:out%2F%20WindowPlacementPermissionAlias> >>>> by default, and remove the flag and legacy code shortly thereafter. >>>> >>>> I'm a little bit confused here - it seems like the PSA of the alias is >>>> being treated as the beginning of a deprecation, is that correct? My >>>> interpretation of "will lead to a deprecation and removal" from the >>>> original message was that it would be followed with an Intent to Deprecate >>>> and Remove (per >>>> https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#deprecate), but it >>>> seems like that step of the process was skipped. >>>> >>> Yes, I never sent out a separate "Intent to Deprecate" in this case. >>> The original PSA >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Hf2b1-S39Uw/m/YAEC_0DSBQAJ> >>> was >>> intended to be a hybrid of the introduction of the new names and >>> deprecation of the old ones so we also landed deprecation code (DevTools >>> deprecation warnings etc.) during that time. Since these have already been >>> "deprecated" since M113, I wasn't sure if a separate "intent to deprecate" >>> was appropriate in this case since we already deprecated them and monitored >>> usage to be sufficiently low, but I can back-up and send an I2D if >>> recommended here. >>> >>>> >>>> Blink component >>>> >>>> Blink>Screen>MultiScreen >>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EScreen%3EMultiScreen> >>>> >>>> TAG review >>>> >>>> No feedback was specifically requested for the permission rename, >>>> however related TAG reviews have been requested with both the old (1 >>>> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/413>, 2 >>>> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/602>) and new >>>> terminology (3 <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/840>). >>>> >>>> TAG review status >>>> >>>> Not applicable >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>> >>>> There are low compatibility risks. Usage for the legacy permission and >>>> permission policy are ~0.006 >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4448> >>>> and ~0.015 >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4450> (% >>>> page loads) while the new variants are ~1.166 >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4447> >>>> and ~3.066 >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4449> (% >>>> page loads) respectively, indicating most usage has already migrated. >>>> >>>> These percentages are still relatively high, especially for the >>>> permissions policy variant. Besides the obvious fingerprint.js usage (which >>>> shouldn't break pages... I would hope), can you describe what the failure >>>> mode is after the proposed removal is? Have you dug into the remaining >>>> usage to verify? >>>> Yes, I dug into the remaining usage quite extensively via Web Archive >>>> queries and UKM and couldn't find any usages other than what looked like >>>> fingerprinting. After removal, the permission API will produce an error due >>>> to an unknown permission, and the permission policy will silently fail >>>> (e.g. iframes with allow='window-placement' will not have access to the >>>> features). I beleive that the numbers shifting several orders of magnitude >>>> in favor of the new strings seems to indicate legitamite usage has >>>> migrated, and the remainig usage likely fingerprinting. >>>> >>>> Gecko: No signal >>>> >>>> Firefox has not implemented the API and corresponding permission yet. >>>> The original API signal request is here >>>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/542>. >>>> >>>> WebKit: No signal >>>> >>>> Safari has not implemented the API and corresponding permission yet. >>>> The original API signal request is here >>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/117>. >>>> >>>> Mind linking to the original API position requests here in this thread? >>>> Added links above to the original API signal request. FWIW, we have >>>> since filed additional requests for functionality related to window >>>> management, not necessarily window *placement* related (hence >>>> motivation for renaming the API): eg 1 >>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/96> 2 >>>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/712> >>>> >>>> >>>> Web developers: We have communicated internally with partners using >>>> the API who have expressed commitment to updating the permission strings in >>>> their code. >>>> >>>> Other signals: Positive comment >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/window-placement/pull/115#pullrequestreview-1159676614> >>>> from W3C WG Chair >>>> >>>> WebView application risks >>>> >>>> This is considered low risk. It removes an alias without any change in >>>> behavior of the underlying API. >>>> >>>> Does this permission do anything on WebView? I would have guessed no. >>>> Your correct, this window management API doesn't apply to WebView so >>>> there is no impact there. >>>> >>>> >>>> Debuggability >>>> >>>> Disabling WindowPlacementPermissionAlias >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/runtime_enabled_features.json5?q=-f:gen%2F%20AND%20-f:out%2F%20WindowPlacementPermissionAlias> >>>> will stop DevTools deprecation warnings for usage of the legacy strings and >>>> instead will act as if they did not exist at all (e.g. Permission API will >>>> produce an error when using "window-placement"). >>>> >>>> >>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>> Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>> >>>> No. This feature is not supported on Android. >>>> >>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Yes. Web Platform tests have already been migrated to the new alias: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/window-management >>>> >>>> Flag name on chrome://flags >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> Finch feature name >>>> >>>> WindowPlacementPermissionAlias >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>> >>>> False >>>> >>>> Tracking bug >>>> >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1328581 >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> >>>> M123 (flag disable) M125 (flag/code removal) >>>> >>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>> >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5137018030391296 >>>> >>>> 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/CALEeEUCdqsmmEhBROkinxbzTULFPXnC8goANs6-_O8n3%2B%3D47hQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALEeEUCdqsmmEhBROkinxbzTULFPXnC8goANs6-_O8n3%2B%3D47hQ%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/CALEeEUBYrF50-%3Dp8umAxQLaEttR-jW4WRfWyF5AATV2p29w17w%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALEeEUBYrF50-%3Dp8umAxQLaEttR-jW4WRfWyF5AATV2p29w17w%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/CALEeEUDd9YoriLSXG3h7usjpyJThZ4W3%2BixTCdVK2PhS0p9_Rw%40mail.gmail.com.
