On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:32 AM Yoav Weiss <y...@yoav.ws> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:32 AM Becca Hughes <beccahug...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> We have been looking into the test failures and believe we have found the >> cause. It looks like env() is switched off on some iOS devices. >> >> The feature can be switched on by going to Settings > Safari > Advanced > >> Experimental Features > Constant Properties. With the feature enabled all >> the WPT tests pass. >> >> > So, the feature is shipped in some iOS devices but not others? Do we know > if it's a matter of Safari version? Or some other criteria? >
Or did they ship this only on some hardware devices but not others? > > > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Becca Hughes <beccahug...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rick, >>> >>> I tested this on an iPhone 6 running iOS 11.4, as well as a Mac (Safari >>> 11.1.1) and iPhone Simulator running iOS 11.4 on both the iPhone 8 and >>> iPhone X and for me all the tests are passing. The Safari version is >>> AppleWebKit/605.1.15 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1. >>> >>> On your iPhone if you type in "show user agent" to Google in Safari it >>> should show you what version of Safari you are running. I wonder if for >>> some reason your iPhone is running an older build of Safari. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Becca >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> > Becca, thank you for getting all the environment variables you're >>> > supporting added to some draft spec, and tentative web-platform-tests >>> > landed - I agree with the earlier discussions that this is a >>> pre-requisite >>> > to shipping (even when Safari has sadly shipped without having >>> invested in >>> > such engineering discipline). >>> > >>> > Ideally we'd have the rest of the env() behavior that we're shipping >>> fully >>> > specified somewhere (even if not yet agreed upon), but given that >>> Safari >>> > has already shipped and developers are starting to depend on it, I'm >>> pretty >>> > confident that either the spec will end up following what's already >>> been >>> > shipped in Safari, or WebKit will agree on breaking changes we feel we >>> can >>> > make. So I'm not convinced we'd get any real-world interoperability >>> value >>> > by blocking our ship further on getting the additional details added >>> to the >>> > spec, instead of just continuing to incubate and iterate. >>> > >>> > However it is important to ensure we are actually shipping something >>> > that's interoperable with Safari including the edge cases. I just ran >>> all >>> > the tests at https://w3c-test.org/css/css-env on an iPhone (iOS 11.4) >>> and >>> > see that most of them are failing (eg. every "syntax" test fails with >>> > "assert_equals expected "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)" but got "rgb(0, 128, 0)"). >>> > They're passing on a Mac (Safari 11.0.3) and when I use an iPhone X on >>> > browserstack.com (iOS 11, can't tell which point release), so I >>> suspect >>> > one of Mobile safari's non-standard quirks (maybe something about >>> viewport >>> > behavior?), but I didn't try to debug them. Do you have access to an >>> iPhone >>> > you can try debugging with, just to double-check that we really are >>> > shipping something that behaves the same on Chrome Android as Safari >>> iOS? >>> > >>> > Rick >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:57 AM Becca Hughes < >>> beccahug...@chromium.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> The spec pull request to define the safe area variables has been >>> merged >>> >> and is now part of the spec >>> >> >> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-env-1/#safe-area-insets>. >> >> >>> >> >>> >> (@David - thanks again for reviewing the PR) >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:55 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On Monday 2018-06-25 13:18 -0700, Becca Hughes wrote: >>> >>> > >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Rune Lillesveen < >>> >>> futh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> The CSSWG resolved on four values and edits to be made to CSS >>> >>> Variables >>> >>> > >>> Level 2[1]. Do we have a resolution overriding that to put it >>> in a >>> >>> separate >>> >>> > >>> spec? >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> I would not be comfortable shipping this without having these >>> four >>> >>> > >>> values put in a spec with a description of what they are. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> I am not sure about the resolution, I will let @Tab answer that >>> one. >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> I added a pull request to add them to the spec: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2807 >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > It looks like Tab will be OOO for the next couple of weeks, but >>> this >>> >>> > shouldn't block launch. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the underlying objection here is that we don't want to get >>> >>> in a situation where multiple implementations are shipping a feature >>> >>> that doesn't have a specification. I don't think that something >>> >>> being in Tab's backlog of specification editing in an acceptable >>> >>> resolution to that, given the size of his backlog. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also don't want to be in a situation where Tab is the single >>> >>> person gating new features; other people should be able to edit CSS >>> >>> specifications, particularly when given appropriate mentoring and >>> >>> advice. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I'd be substantially happier here if there were a specification >>> >>> before a second implementation shipped, but I also think getting >>> >>> that specification done shouldn't require any one particular person >>> >>> to be involved. >>> >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 >>> >>> 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 >>> >>> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know >>> >>> What I was walling in or walling out, >>> >>> And to whom I was like to give offense. >>> >>> - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>> >> "blink-dev" group. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ >>> >> chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELTCuBL83Dd6kOnEfNQGUpdO >>> >> JV7VnVeV-7Bo-78oraG6A%40mail.gmail.com >>> >> >> < >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELTCuBL83Dd6kOnEfNQGUpdOJV7VnVeV-7Bo-78oraG6A%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/CAFeLsELjgh5773%3DJpR7VdqqfUFqCpfQ7JzjN_ENdJhjafEABRA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELjgh5773%3DJpR7VdqqfUFqCpfQ7JzjN_ENdJhjafEABRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list dev-tech-layout@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
