I'm happy for a clearer name if that's the result of the CSS WG discussion, and we do timeout on the TAG from time to time, but maybe we can ask them to review quickly? I'll ping Rossen.
Regardless, given that we are still going to be the first to ship, we have to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Won't block this intent if others are fine to ship w/ whatever resolution to the naming debate happens, but it's an example of a recurring pattern out of the CSS WG (and a few other WGs) that Blink doesn't accept: our process isn't happy to launch without appropriate horizontal review when things are risky. Sometimes we can truncate reviews because we aren't out in front and there's low risk of first-mover disadvantage, but in cases like this where there are no signals from other vendors, the risks of being wrong are pronounced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z83L6xa1tw In these cases, it's always great to ask if we can go to OT and ship gaplessly if reviews come back green. Thoughts? On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks Chris! >> >> I think that we should ship this with whatever name the CSS WG can agree >> on. Do you know when this will be discussed, and do you think we should >> wait until after that meeting to approve this? >> > > It's on the CSSWG agenda for tomorrow. Let's wait for that group's > decision on the name, after which I personally would feel comfortable > shipping (though I'm recused as an API owner on this thread, since I am > involved in the feature). > > >> >> Best regards, >> Philip >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:06 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Inert still is, see >>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-element-isvisible. Was there >>>> agreement to drop that, but it didn't happen yet? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. This issue <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7274> >>> tracks it, just needs spec edits. >>> >>> I've also opened an issue >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317> to discuss whether >>> isHidden is a better name than isVisible and added to the CSSWG agenda. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> > 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/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYd11QU0yxfbTnyOX_RcX8U%3D03Y35vrebCVd12hPPOU%3Dsw%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/bd6eace3-1ebc-4601-b5d0-15065c2e0ed3n%40chromium.org.
