Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Streaming declarative shadow DOM

LGTM2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:27 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Thanks Mason. LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:59 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:41 AM Rick Byers wrote: >> >>> *Gecko*: Positive (

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Updated dialog initial focus algorithm

> Is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8199 blocked mainly on implementer interest? Yes it looks that way > Do other browsers exactly match the behavior before this spec change, or is it more complicated than that? What I'm getting at is whether we have confidence that we'll have eventual

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

Thanks Danil. Great, that means you can mark 'Firefox' as 'shipping' in chromestatus. For Safari ideally you'd link to a WebKit bug tracking this, but regardless (even if they say something positive) the signal stays

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Streaming declarative shadow DOM

Thanks Mason. LGTM1 On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:59 PM Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:41 AM Rick Byers wrote: > >> >>> *Gecko*: Positive ( >>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5465#pullrequestreview-1132523065) >>> >> >> Per our process, Mozilla has asked that we only

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Streaming declarative shadow DOM

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:41 AM Rick Byers wrote: > >> *Gecko*: Positive ( >> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5465#pullrequestreview-1132523065) >> > > Per our process, Mozilla has asked that we only consider positive signals > from their standards-position repo. I see they currently have >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FileSystemFileHandle.move() for local files

Hi Rick, Thanks for the great questions. I think some misunderstanding could have been avoided here had I copied one important line from the explainer into this Intent: > When

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

Now I see, thanks! Firefox has updated their implementation and is up-to-date. Safari hasn't done anything yet from what I can tell. I will ping them. Long live the web platform! On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:00 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean that WebKit and Gecko have

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean that WebKit and Gecko have implementations of container queries, do they already support these properties? If not, we want to ensure they're aware of the spec change and have open bugs tracking making updates to their engines to reduce the likely time period for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FileSystemFileHandle.move() for local files

Hi Austin, I've been skimming through the history here but am left a little confused about how exactly this fits into the larger file system picture. When you shipped 'remove' I gather that was for both OPFS and

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

Hi, Rick! Thanks! Not sure I understand what you mean. On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 6:21 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Looks to be a very low risk update to a brand new feature, LGTM3 > > But what do we know about the other implementations with respect to this > change? For any which haven't yet updated,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

Looks to be a very low risk update to a brand new feature, LGTM3 But what do we know about the other implementations with respect to this change? For any which haven't yet updated, are there bugs tracking it? On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:27 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 1/24/23 9:19 AM,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Updated dialog initial focus algorithm

Is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8199 blocked mainly on implementer interest? Do other browsers exactly match the behavior before this spec change, or is it more complicated than that? What I'm getting at is whether we have confidence that we'll have eventual interop on the new behavior.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Streaming declarative shadow DOM

Hi Mason, Thanks for continuing to work to get interoperable support for declarative shadow DOM! On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 7:36 PM Mason Freed wrote: > Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org > > Explainerhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5465 > https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/892 > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove quirks mode behavior for option label attribute

Hey Joey, Thanks for working to remove a quirk! Although we haven't written it into our compat principles , I'm personally willing to accept greater compat risk for removing quirks as they're by-definition legacy behavior of the web which create an ongoing complexity

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Updated dialog initial focus algorithm

Looks like showing dialog elements is at around 0.04% of page loads, so that's an upper bound of the compat risk here, right? The severity of breakage for focus

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

LGTM2 On 1/24/23 9:19 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: LGTM1 Thanks Daniil for that httparchive analysis. The second one looking for use of the @container rule should include all cases that could matter. 56 unique matches is a very small number when it comes to httparchive compat analysis. I

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: data: URL in SVGUseElement

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:00 PM Jun Kokatsu wrote: > Hi All, > > I wanted to provide some updates on outreach I've done last week. > > I manually went through a list of sample sites in the use counter > , and > contacted ~10

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

LGTM1 Thanks Daniil for that httparchive analysis. The second one looking for use of the @container rule should include all cases that could matter. 56 unique matches is a very small number when it comes to httparchive compat analysis. I double checked just one of them (botaniska.se, a nice park

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: View Transitions: single-page apps

An important part of this for us was to ensure that we didn't 'design ourselves in a corner'. A part of this, we sketched out many additional features we want to add to ensure the current design is future-compatible: -

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

And another query for @container + conditionText. There are no things that can be broken. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ILyBkGLud7fy4kXjlLURELhcMRAPqdEWz8X8J25SfDY/edit?usp=sharing On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:35 AM Daniil Sakhapov wrote: > Hi! > > So, I haven't found any usage on the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: View Transitions: single-page apps

LGTM3 Super excited about this work and solving those critical use cases (for both SPA and MPA). Thanks for tackling this!! On Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 11:06 Mike West wrote: > LGTM2. > > That said, I'd note Mozilla's desire in the standards position thread to > couple this with the multi-page

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: View Transitions: single-page apps

LGTM2. That said, I'd note Mozilla's desire in the standards position thread to couple this with the multi-page transition work. I agree with your position that the two can be decoupled, and I don't see anything that screams back-compat risk skimming through the followup issues that the TAG