On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> It looks like the TAG was prodded, since the "2022-06-13-week" > milestone was just added to > https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/734. > > However, I don't think it's reasonable for us to keep waiting for the > TAG until mid-June when this proposal already had plenty of input from > other vendors in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6850. > > This API checks the synchronously available state to determine if the > element is going to be hidden in the next frame, but it doesn't > determine if it's really visible like Intersection Observer. That > seems like a useful thing to have. The useful thing is: * Reliably detect visibility according to some basic semantics that are common to test for (use cases listed in the issue) * Provide a performant way to detect content-visibility:hidden > However, the bits involving inert > and aria-hidden do seem a bit out of place for something called > isVisible, to me. > These two are no longer part of the proposal. Alex, can you simulate the TAG and give some suggestions for what > names they should suggest? isHidden() is the first that comes to mind > for me. > Best regards, > Philip > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 5:43 PM Alex Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The TAG has not substantively commented on this one, and I'd expect them > to raise some concerns. For instance, this is a synchronous method, but > we've explicitly built Intersection Observers as an async mechansim for > cheaply computing *true* visibility, whereas this API only checks some > current CSS properties (with options). This seems to be poorly integrated, > and I'd have expected the TAG to at least suggest a different name. > > > > Have you considered an OT? Or prodded the TAG? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Alex > > > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:40:50 AM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> > >> LGTM2 > >> > >> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:44:11 PM UTC+2 Dave Tapuska wrote: > >>> > >>> Ya I only ran into this when investigating how visibility really > works. Such as visibilityChanged events and document.visibilityState do not > change for a hidden iframe. (which I guess is correct based on its > definition, because those are about the tab being in the foreground or > not). The only problem I have with this definition is that the CSS spec > declares it as "rendered" and if someone is considering that as pixels on > the display that isn't quite correct. > >>> > >>> I did find enough stack overflow articles about people asking about > interactions with the parent document. I don't think making it work for > same origin iframes vs cross origin iframes is something that would give > much benefit. > >>> > >>> dave. > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 2:39 PM Joey Arhar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Oh that is what was debated here > >>>> > >>>> I think that the use of "document" there was about being in the > viewport and being painted, not about iframes. > >>>> > >>>> Currently, isVisible doesn't look at parent iframes. I don't think > there's anything wrong with adding that functionality for LocalFrames, but > doing so for RemoteFrames would probably have security/privacy > considerations. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:17 PM Dave Tapuska <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> So how does this method work for iframes that have their visibility > hidden? Is it intended to work for that? > >>>>> > >>>>> <iframe style="visibility:hidden"> > >>>>> <div></div> > >>>>> </iframe> > >>>>> > >>>>> div's isVisible will always be true. Perhaps isVisible needs a > caveat that it only works for the current document. Oh that is what was > debated here. > >>>>> > >>>>> dave. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:52 PM Mike Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given the CSSWG resolution in > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7274#issuecomment-1130214343, > LGTM1 to ship assuming we're not shipping `checkInert` with the rest. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for addressing Mozilla's feedback. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/5/22 4:26 PM, Joey Arhar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Can you ask for signals? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/634 > >>>>>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2022-May/032218.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 3:02 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:08:11 AM UTC+2 Joey Arhar wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Contact emails > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Explainer > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/WICG/display-locking/blob/main/explainers/isvisible.md > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Specification > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-isvisible > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Summary > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Element.isVisible() returns true if the element is visible, and > false if it is not. It checks a variety of factors that would make an > element invisible, including display:none, visibility, content-visibility, > and opacity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Blink component > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Blink>DOM > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TAG review > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/734 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TAG review status > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Pending > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Risks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This feature is not particularly contentious or complicated, but > is mostly useful in the presence of content-visibility. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gecko: No signal > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> WebKit: No signal > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you ask for signals? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Web developers: No signals > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Would be good to gather signals here as well. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Other signals: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ergonomics > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This feature could be used in tandem with content-visibility or > details elements. Usage of this API will not make it hard for Chrome to > maintain good performance. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Activation > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This feature is easy to feature detect and polyfill. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Security > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have no security risks/considerations for this feature. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> WebView application risks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, > such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based > applications? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This does not deprecate or change any existing APIs and does not > have any risk for WebView. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Debuggability > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This feature does not need any new debugging features. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Flag name > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --enable-blink-features=isVisible > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> False > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tracking bug > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1309533 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Estimated milestones > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 103 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web > compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known > github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose > resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming > or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7232 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5163102852087808 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Intent to prototype: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAK6btwK01yGZ0LVb6M_8WdeC5OM0qfUv5T1TUO%3D1if1G%2BKogRw%40mail.gmail.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. > >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAK6btwKkoRBHUja0MePoXLRq0vN_WVeF%3Dr2se34ThXo5Tr%2BdtQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. > >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b0204d81-ded9-9c94-7a7e-6910b91d88dc%40chromium.org > . > > > > -- > > 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 [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/64d45aa5-e1f3-42ae-95c8-b60bba772bden%40chromium.org > . > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYcBU%2BUWXGFweVB5G_-MChDDShhbs%3D%3DqgLfKNVEbVY5VeQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw-cMyniqpaPK9MdSWCY0Mtvj-O8ya%2BMvcNT3nnY%3DHuZqA%40mail.gmail.com.
