Thank you Chris and Rick for the LGTMs. We still need one more API owner to approve.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:02 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote: > 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
