Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

2022-12-09 Thread Mike Taylor 

Thanks for the triage effort. LGTM3.

On 12/9/22 6:04 AM, 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev wrote:



On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:23 AM Mike West  wrote:

LGTM2, for the same reason.

That said, there are a number of open bugs against the repository.
Have you done any triage against them to see whether any might be
compatibility issues in the future?


Thanks for the reminder Mike.
I went through all of them (triage was overdue) and I'm happy to 
report there's no foreseen compatibility issue with this pseudo class.



-mike


On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:51 AM Yoav Weiss 
wrote:

I think that reviving this 3.5 years later warrants getting
LGTMs again, as the landscape may have changed.

With that said, *LGTM1*, as it seems this would now be
catching up with Safari.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:00 AM 'François Beaufort' via
blink-dev  wrote:

Originally planned[1] to be shipped in Chrome 76, the
":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class was disabled[2] in
the same milestone as we thought we may need to revisit
the design based on new features coming into the
Picture-in-Picture API.

This is not the case anymore. For this reason we'll ship
it in Chrome 110.

Note that the ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class has
been implemented by Safari[3] since.

[1]

https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=eb334058998fda433c4c910bf36d665082b30434
[2]

https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=ac1159c89f4a93414d477fc47548afa563b0c612
[3]

https://wpt.fyi/results/picture-in-picture/css-selector.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned



On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:29:47 PM UTC+2 Chris
Harrelson wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM
 wrote:

Thank you. See answer inline.

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:25:10 PM UTC+2,
Daniel Bratell wrote:

LGTM3

/Daniel

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:57:25 +0200, Yoav Weiss
 wrote:

LGTM2

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:37 PM Chris
Harrelson  wrote:

Great!

LGTM1

Would be good to also have a WPT test
exercising the absence of retargeting,
if there isn't already.


I've added one.


Thanks!


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM
'Mounir Lamouri' via blink-dev
 wrote:

The Picture-in-Picture spec has
been updated.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:46,
Daniel Bratell 
wrote:

Looks like nobody responded.
Maybe mlamouri can take a look?

/Daniel

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:32:49
+0200, François Beaufort
 wrote:

Thank you everyone for
your feedback and answers!

I'm sending a spec PR at

https://github.com/WICG/picture-in-picture/pull/126 that
removes retargeting.
I'll also pinging
fullscreen spec owners at

https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/issues/149.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at
7:03 PM Chris Harrelson
 wrote:

(API owner hat off in
this response)

I don't think that
:picture-in-picture
should automatically
apply to the shadow
host chain (*). I

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

2022-12-09 Thread 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev 
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 10:23 AM Mike West  wrote:

> LGTM2, for the same reason.
>
> That said, there are a number of open bugs against the repository. Have
> you done any triage against them to see whether any might be compatibility
> issues in the future?
>

Thanks for the reminder Mike.
I went through all of them (triage was overdue) and I'm happy to report
there's no foreseen compatibility issue with this pseudo class.


> -mike
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:51 AM Yoav Weiss  wrote:
>
>> I think that reviving this 3.5 years later warrants getting LGTMs again,
>> as the landscape may have changed.
>>
>> With that said, *LGTM1*, as it seems this would now be catching up with
>> Safari.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:00 AM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev <
>> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Originally planned[1] to be shipped in Chrome 76, the
>>> ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class was disabled[2] in the same
>>> milestone as we thought we may need to revisit the design based on new
>>> features coming into the Picture-in-Picture API.
>>>
>>> This is not the case anymore. For this reason we'll ship it in Chrome
>>> 110.
>>>
>>> Note that the ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class has been
>>> implemented by Safari[3] since.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=eb334058998fda433c4c910bf36d665082b30434
>>> [2]
>>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=ac1159c89f4a93414d477fc47548afa563b0c612
>>> [3]
>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/picture-in-picture/css-selector.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:29:47 PM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM  wrote:

> Thank you. See answer inline.
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:25:10 PM UTC+2, Daniel Bratell wrote:
>>
>> LGTM3
>>
>> /Daniel
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:57:25 +0200, Yoav Weiss  wrote:
>>
>> LGTM2
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:37 PM Chris Harrelson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great!
>>>
>>> LGTM1
>>>
>>> Would be good to also have a WPT test exercising the absence of
>>> retargeting, if there isn't already.
>>>
>>
> I've added one.
>

 Thanks!


>
>
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Mounir Lamouri' via blink-dev <
>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
 The Picture-in-Picture spec has been updated.

 On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:46, Daniel Bratell 
 wrote:

> Looks like nobody responded. Maybe mlamouri can take a look?
>
> /Daniel
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:32:49 +0200, François Beaufort <
> beaufort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you everyone for your feedback and answers!
>
> I'm sending a spec PR at
> https://github.com/WICG/picture-in-picture/pull/126 that removes
> retargeting.
> I'll also pinging fullscreen spec owners at
> https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/issues/149.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chris Harrelson <
> chri...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> (API owner hat off in this response)
>>
>> I don't think that :picture-in-picture should automatically apply
>> to the shadow host chain (*). I suggest removing retargeting from 
>> that spec
>> and also for the spec definition of :fullscreen.
>>
>> Rune's suggestion about using :part also makes sense to me.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> (*) Posted some thoughts at
>> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/804
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:45 AM Rune Lillesveen <
>> fut...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:22 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <
>>> emi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't think such behavior makes sense for :fullscreen (nor for
 :picture-in-picture). For example, the fullscreen spec defines
 an
 user-agent stylesheet[1] that would break the layout of any
 shadow host
 containing the fullscreen element if such a thing was
 implemented. I
 don't think that's desirable nor makes much sense.

 Also, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to match
 :fullscreen for
 some shadow host that has arbitrary content apart of the
 fullscreen
 element, but maybe I could be convinced otherwise?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, wouldn't that be targeted more naturally with ::part?
>>>
>>> E.g.:  movie-app::part(video):fullscreen {}
>>>
>>> Note: Apparently, :fullscreen doesn't work with ::part() in
>>> Blink. Reported https://crbug.com/953648
>>>
>>> --

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

2022-12-07 Thread Mike West 
LGTM2, for the same reason.

That said, there are a number of open bugs against the repository. Have you
done any triage against them to see whether any might be compatibility
issues in the future?

-mike


On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:51 AM Yoav Weiss  wrote:

> I think that reviving this 3.5 years later warrants getting LGTMs again,
> as the landscape may have changed.
>
> With that said, *LGTM1*, as it seems this would now be catching up with
> Safari.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:00 AM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev <
> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Originally planned[1] to be shipped in Chrome 76, the
>> ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class was disabled[2] in the same
>> milestone as we thought we may need to revisit the design based on new
>> features coming into the Picture-in-Picture API.
>>
>> This is not the case anymore. For this reason we'll ship it in Chrome 110.
>>
>> Note that the ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class has been implemented
>> by Safari[3] since.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=eb334058998fda433c4c910bf36d665082b30434
>> [2]
>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=ac1159c89f4a93414d477fc47548afa563b0c612
>> [3]
>> https://wpt.fyi/results/picture-in-picture/css-selector.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>>
>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:29:47 PM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM  wrote:
>>>
 Thank you. See answer inline.

 On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:25:10 PM UTC+2, Daniel Bratell wrote:
>
> LGTM3
>
> /Daniel
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:57:25 +0200, Yoav Weiss  wrote:
>
> LGTM2
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:37 PM Chris Harrelson 
> wrote:
>
>> Great!
>>
>> LGTM1
>>
>> Would be good to also have a WPT test exercising the absence of
>> retargeting, if there isn't already.
>>
>
 I've added one.

>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>


>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Mounir Lamouri' via blink-dev <
>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The Picture-in-Picture spec has been updated.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:46, Daniel Bratell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Looks like nobody responded. Maybe mlamouri can take a look?

 /Daniel

 On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:32:49 +0200, François Beaufort <
 beaufort...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Thank you everyone for your feedback and answers!

 I'm sending a spec PR at
 https://github.com/WICG/picture-in-picture/pull/126 that removes
 retargeting.
 I'll also pinging fullscreen spec owners at
 https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/issues/149.

 On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chris Harrelson <
 chri...@chromium.org> wrote:

> (API owner hat off in this response)
>
> I don't think that :picture-in-picture should automatically apply
> to the shadow host chain (*). I suggest removing retargeting from 
> that spec
> and also for the spec definition of :fullscreen.
>
> Rune's suggestion about using :part also makes sense to me.
>
> Chris
>
> (*) Posted some thoughts at
> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/804
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:45 AM Rune Lillesveen <
> fut...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:22 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <
>> emi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think such behavior makes sense for :fullscreen (nor for
>>> :picture-in-picture). For example, the fullscreen spec defines an
>>> user-agent stylesheet[1] that would break the layout of any
>>> shadow host
>>> containing the fullscreen element if such a thing was
>>> implemented. I
>>> don't think that's desirable nor makes much sense.
>>>
>>> Also, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to match
>>> :fullscreen for
>>> some shadow host that has arbitrary content apart of the
>>> fullscreen
>>> element, but maybe I could be convinced otherwise?
>>
>>
>> Yes, wouldn't that be targeted more naturally with ::part?
>>
>> E.g.:  movie-app::part(video):fullscreen {}
>>
>> Note: Apparently, :fullscreen doesn't work with ::part() in
>> Blink. Reported https://crbug.com/953648
>>
>> --
>> 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 blin...@chromium.org.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuPfeTK2gYAXEZT88CO%3DOxjYr

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

2022-12-07 Thread Yoav Weiss 
I think that reviving this 3.5 years later warrants getting LGTMs again, as
the landscape may have changed.

With that said, *LGTM1*, as it seems this would now be catching up with
Safari.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 8:00 AM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev <
blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote:

> Originally planned[1] to be shipped in Chrome 76, the
> ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class was disabled[2] in the same
> milestone as we thought we may need to revisit the design based on new
> features coming into the Picture-in-Picture API.
>
> This is not the case anymore. For this reason we'll ship it in Chrome 110.
>
> Note that the ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class has been implemented
> by Safari[3] since.
>
> [1]
> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=eb334058998fda433c4c910bf36d665082b30434
> [2]
> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=ac1159c89f4a93414d477fc47548afa563b0c612
> [3]
> https://wpt.fyi/results/picture-in-picture/css-selector.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned
>
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:29:47 PM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you. See answer inline.
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:25:10 PM UTC+2, Daniel Bratell wrote:

 LGTM3

 /Daniel

 On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:57:25 +0200, Yoav Weiss  wrote:

 LGTM2

 On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:37 PM Chris Harrelson 
 wrote:

> Great!
>
> LGTM1
>
> Would be good to also have a WPT test exercising the absence of
> retargeting, if there isn't already.
>

>>> I've added one.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Mounir Lamouri' via blink-dev <
> blin...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> The Picture-in-Picture spec has been updated.
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:46, Daniel Bratell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like nobody responded. Maybe mlamouri can take a look?
>>>
>>> /Daniel
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:32:49 +0200, François Beaufort <
>>> beaufort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you everyone for your feedback and answers!
>>>
>>> I'm sending a spec PR at
>>> https://github.com/WICG/picture-in-picture/pull/126 that removes
>>> retargeting.
>>> I'll also pinging fullscreen spec owners at
>>> https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/issues/149.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chris Harrelson <
>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
 (API owner hat off in this response)

 I don't think that :picture-in-picture should automatically apply
 to the shadow host chain (*). I suggest removing retargeting from that 
 spec
 and also for the spec definition of :fullscreen.

 Rune's suggestion about using :part also makes sense to me.

 Chris

 (*) Posted some thoughts at
 https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/804

 On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:45 AM Rune Lillesveen <
 fut...@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:22 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <
> emi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think such behavior makes sense for :fullscreen (nor for
>> :picture-in-picture). For example, the fullscreen spec defines an
>> user-agent stylesheet[1] that would break the layout of any
>> shadow host
>> containing the fullscreen element if such a thing was
>> implemented. I
>> don't think that's desirable nor makes much sense.
>>
>> Also, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to match
>> :fullscreen for
>> some shadow host that has arbitrary content apart of the
>> fullscreen
>> element, but maybe I could be convinced otherwise?
>
>
> Yes, wouldn't that be targeted more naturally with ::part?
>
> E.g.:  movie-app::part(video):fullscreen {}
>
> Note: Apparently, :fullscreen doesn't work with ::part() in Blink.
> Reported https://crbug.com/953648
>
> --
> 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 blin...@chromium.org.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuPfeTK2gYAXEZT88CO%3DOxjYrSL%2B92WSL8GspQ-QvQ_8pqV3A%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
 the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
 To unsubscrib

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

2022-12-06 Thread 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev 
Originally planned[1] to be shipped in Chrome 76, the ":picture-in-picture" 
CSS pseudo-class was disabled[2] in the same milestone as we thought we may 
need to revisit the design based on new features coming into the 
Picture-in-Picture API.

This is not the case anymore. For this reason we'll ship it in Chrome 110.

Note that the ":picture-in-picture" CSS pseudo-class has been implemented 
by Safari[3] since.

[1] 
https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=eb334058998fda433c4c910bf36d665082b30434
[2] 
https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commits?commit=ac1159c89f4a93414d477fc47548afa563b0c612
[3] 
https://wpt.fyi/results/picture-in-picture/css-selector.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:29:47 PM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:38 AM  wrote:
>
>> Thank you. See answer inline.
>>
>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:25:10 PM UTC+2, Daniel Bratell wrote:
>>>
>>> LGTM3
>>>
>>> /Daniel
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 20:57:25 +0200, Yoav Weiss  wrote:
>>>
>>> LGTM2
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:37 PM Chris Harrelson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Great!

 LGTM1

 Would be good to also have a WPT test exercising the absence of 
 retargeting, if there isn't already.

>>>
>> I've added one.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>
 On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Mounir Lamouri' via blink-dev <
 blin...@chromium.org> wrote:

> The Picture-in-Picture spec has been updated.
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:46, Daniel Bratell  wrote:
>
>> Looks like nobody responded. Maybe mlamouri can take a look?
>>
>> /Daniel
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:32:49 +0200, François Beaufort <
>> beaufort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you everyone for your feedback and answers!
>>
>> I'm sending a spec PR at 
>> https://github.com/WICG/picture-in-picture/pull/126 that removes 
>> retargeting.
>> I'll also pinging fullscreen spec owners at 
>> https://github.com/whatwg/fullscreen/issues/149.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:03 PM Chris Harrelson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (API owner hat off in this response)
>>>
>>> I don't think that :picture-in-picture should automatically apply to 
>>> the shadow host chain (*). I suggest removing retargeting from that 
>>> spec 
>>> and also for the spec definition of :fullscreen.
>>>
>>> Rune's suggestion about using :part also makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> (*) Posted some thoughts at 
>>> https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/804
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:45 AM Rune Lillesveen  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:22 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez <
 emi...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I don't think such behavior makes sense for :fullscreen (nor for
> :picture-in-picture). For example, the fullscreen spec defines an
> user-agent stylesheet[1] that would break the layout of any shadow 
> host
> containing the fullscreen element if such a thing was implemented. 
> I
> don't think that's desirable nor makes much sense.
>
> Also, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to match 
> :fullscreen for
> some shadow host that has arbitrary content apart of the fullscreen
> element, but maybe I could be convinced otherwise?


 Yes, wouldn't that be targeted more naturally with ::part?

 E.g.:  movie-app::part(video):fullscreen {}

 Note: Apparently, :fullscreen doesn't work with ::part() in Blink. 
 Reported https://crbug.com/953648

 -- 
 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 blin...@chromium.org.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuPfeTK2gYAXEZT88CO%3DOxjYrSL%2B92WSL8GspQ-QvQ_8pqV3A%40mail.gmail.com
  
 
 .

>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in 
>>> the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/blink-dev/X-qPSmdSR_g/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>>> blin...@chromium.org.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw9fZ6VVwhoiNAkgwWP6w3-xOQzy1HEL2G5HhNRBuSvu_g%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>>