On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:18 PM Philip Jägenstedt
<[email protected]> wrote:
My LGTM is conditional on a removal milestone for the old names
asrequested by Daniel. Since aliases are extremely cheap to keep
around. https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/
suggests "as many milestones as possible to respond to the
deprecation" but more than 6 milestones would seem excessive to
me. I'd suggest 3 milestones.
Thank you, 3 milestones makes sense. @[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, can you make the necessary adjustments?
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 3:14 PM Philip Jägenstedt
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Nidhi,
Given the very low usage, that this was already agreed to in
the WG, and that it's not merely cosmetic but matches reality
better, LGTM1.
Best regards,
Philip
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:26 AM Nidhi Jaju
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Alex,
My understanding is that when WebTransport was initially
shipped in Chromium, the core functionality of the W3C
spec was considered fairly stable, and the decision was
made to launch prior to Candidate Recommendation status.
On the path to Candidate Recommendation, there have been
some updates in response to implementation experience from
other implementors and needs from use cases like MoQ.
While we don't want to casually rename attributes for
minor cosmetic reasons, this rename updates the
attribute's name so that its meaning aligns with the
reality of the functionality it provides.
The WebTransport API overall is used by 0.0025% of page
loads<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3472>,
and the highWaterMark attribute can only be a subset of
that. However, we're starting to see some adoption in the
ecosystem, especially with the specs nearing completion
and other major browsers shipping WebTransport
implementations, so we'd like to make these changes while
there's still an opportunity to minimize developer and
compatibility impact.
WebTransport is also included in Interop 2026, so we're
expecting to make additional updates to align our
implementation with the current state of the spec as it
enters Candidate Recommendation status.
Best,
Nidhi
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 3:45 AM Alex Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Nidhi,
Thanks for all of this background. I'm sure naming
alignment might be nice, but it doesn't seem obvious
to me that we should agree to a change post-launch,
particularly without usage data. In general, the I2S
process should be thought of as pouring concrete;
everything's fluid until it has set. As a result, we
have a dislike of this sort of casual renaming
post-launch. The evidentiary bar to support a rename
is high, although you might be able to support strict
aliasing with less pushback.
Best,
Alex
On Friday, May 8, 2026 at 6:17:00 AM UTC-7 Nidhi Jaju
wrote:
> Why was this renamed? Why would we agree to a
cosmetic change after shipping?
While we shipped our initial implementation of
WebTransport in 2021, the specification has
evolved since then as it progressed through the
IETF and W3C, other browsers have also brought
implementation experience, and other groups like
Media over QUIC (MoQ) have highlighted the need
for updates/additions to the spec.
https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/723
explains some of the reasoning behind this change.
In the Streams API, a "high water mark" is a
signal for backpressure and flow control, whereas
in WebTransport, these attributes actually
represent a hard cap on the number of datagrams
retained in the queue. If this limit is exceeded,
datagrams are dropped rather than just signaling
backpressure, so the new names avoid developer
confusion by more accurately describing the behavior.
Best,
Nidhi
On Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 3:36:22 AM UTC+9
Alex Russell wrote:
Why was this renamed? Why would we agree to a
cosmetic change after shipping?
Best,
Alex
On Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 7:58:36 AM
UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote:
Do you have a suggested "removal milestone"?
We have found that unless we name a
specific milestone, many people ignore
deprecation warnings and then they pile up
and we get warning fatigue.
Also, do you have usage data? Use Counters
or some other kind of upper limit on how
many might be affected?
/Daniel
On 2026-04-08 11:29, Chromestatus wrote:
*Contact emails*
[email protected]
*Explainer*
/No information provided/
*Specification*
https://w3c.github.io/webtransport/#dom-webtransportdatagramduplexstream-incomingmaxbuffereddatagrams,https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/58612/changes
*Summary*
The incomingHighWaterMark and
outgoingHighWaterMark attributes on
WebTransportDatagramDuplexStream are
deprecated in favor of
incomingMaxBufferedDatagrams and
outgoingMaxBufferedDatagrams, following a
spec rename. The attribute type also
changes from long to unsigned long.
Developers should migrate to the new
attribute names. The old names will show
a console deprecation warning and will be
removed in a future release.
*Blink component*
Blink>Network>WebTransport
<https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3ENetwork%3EWebTransport%22>
*Web Feature ID*
webtransport
<https://webstatus.dev/features/webtransport>
*Motivation*
The WebTransport specification renamed
two attributes on
WebTransportDatagramDuplexStream: -
incomingHighWaterMark →
incomingMaxBufferedDatagrams -
outgoingHighWaterMark →
outgoingMaxBufferedDatagrams The
attribute type was also changed from long
to unsigned long. The new names better
describe the attributes' purpose (they
control the maximum number of buffered
datagrams, not a byte-based high water
mark). The new attribute names are
already exposed alongside the old ones.
The old names should be deprecated and
removed to align with the specification
and avoid developer confusion from having
two names for the same thing.
*Initial public proposal*
/No information provided/
*Goals for experimentation*
None
*Debuggability*
/No information provided/
*Requires code in //chrome?*
False
*Tracking bug*
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/494380213
*Estimated milestones*
No milestones specified
*Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5143839699501056?gate=4911413786181632
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/69d61ffa.050a0220.1c79a0.099e.GAE%40google.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/69d61ffa.050a0220.1c79a0.099e.GAE%40google.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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMZNYANHu1%3DUq-6f_fbXN0h%2BwXnN%2Bbkp5QLhRfcpGUw_U99Cvg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMZNYANHu1%3DUq-6f_fbXN0h%2BwXnN%2Bbkp5QLhRfcpGUw_U99Cvg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
