LGTM3 On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:21 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote:
> [Dropping mozilla-dev-tech-layout since it's a subscribers-only list] > > That explainer looks great to me, thanks! I added a link to the chromestatus > entry <https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5710044637167616>. > > It's sad that we still don't really have a proper spec for the meta > viewport tag, just the apparently stalled device adaptation spec > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-device-adapt/>. But at least between that > and the round display draft > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-round-display/#viewport-fit-descriptor> there's > kinda an existing definition for the viewport-fit token. I guess there's > not really any reasonable way to write a web-platform-test for the > viewport-fit behavior. We'd have to add a WebDriver command to simulate a > display cut-out <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/11718>, > and also come up with some mitigation > <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/11717> for the fact > that mobile viewports are really an Android-only behavior in Chrome at the > moment. That's a fair amount of work, and IMHO not worth blocking this > feature on. > > LGTM2 > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:48 PM Becca Hughes <beccahug...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Here is an explainer for the feature: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lbZi18_5cMlLOphpFqTbuI4B0YGykQvvtRbw6j67UyE/edit >> >> Thanks, >> Becca >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:35 AM, 'Alex Russell' via >> mozilla.dev.tech.layout <mozilla.dev.tech.lay...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> API OWNERS met this morning and while we're not exercised about the lack >>> of >>> spec text, the linked design docs don't fill the role of an Explainer: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cJs7GkdQolqOHns9k6v1UjCUb_LqTFVjZM-kc3TbNGI/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> That is, it isn't clear what problems this is solving, why these >>> (relatively large) proposals are the correct way to solve them, or what >>> the >>> considered alternatives are. Rubber-stamping the >>> launched-without-consultation (or even Origin Trial) additions of >>> another >>> vendor without that sort of deliberation is very much a non-goals, so if >>> there are docs that could stand in for an Explainer here, that would >>> help >>> unblock my LGTM. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:24:48 AM UTC-7, Becca Hughes wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, 23:40 Yoav Weiss, <yo...@yoav.ws <javascript:>> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:32 AM Yoav Weiss <yo...@yoav.ws >>> <javascript:>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:32 AM Becca Hughes < >>> becca...@chromium.org >>> >> <javascript:>> >>> >> > 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? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > The original launch announcement from Apple cites that you need at >>> least >>> > iOS 11.2 beta. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Or did they ship this only on some hardware devices but not others? >>> >> >>> > >>> > I am not sure about the exact details but at least in their repo it is >>> on >>> > by default: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/01ff8c715bb788e0d721948c7d7acd7d5cfa06c3/Source/WebKit/Shared/WebPreferences.yaml#L1058 >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Becca Hughes < >>> becca...@chromium.org >>> >> <javascript:>> >>> >> >> 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 >>> >> <javascript:>> 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 < >>> >> >>> becca...@chromium.org <javascript:>> >>> >> >>> > 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 >>> >> <javascript:>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Monday 2018-06-25 13:18 -0700, Becca Hughes wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> > >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Rune Lillesveen < >>> >> >>> >>> fut...@chromium.org <javascript:>> 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+...@chromium.org <javascript:>. >>> >> >> 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 >>> >> > >>> >> >> . >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> -- >> 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/CAFeLsE%2BkJugFcOhaMxtBThZezroAPZTY1QaMSXW0oHDnu105Yg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsE%2BkJugFcOhaMxtBThZezroAPZTY1QaMSXW0oHDnu105Yg%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/CAFUtAY-KpYMW6Sr_a3JPZPjGWmisFM0%3D%2BP6w3nofH9MpEcQ7KQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-KpYMW6Sr_a3JPZPjGWmisFM0%3D%2BP6w3nofH9MpEcQ7KQ%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
