LGTM3 to checkVisibility()! On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 at 12:21 Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
> My LGTM still stands. Thanks for bikeshedding this!! :) > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 8:48 PM Joey Arhar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The CSSWG has resolved to rename the method to checkVisibility: >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:36 AM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 is still ongoing, so I >>> think we should just wait until it's settled in the next CSSWG call. >>> >>> In this case, there's been (continues to be) multi-vendor input in the >>> CSSWG, and the IntersectionObserver naming >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317#issuecomment-1149949799> >>> has >>> been raised. If members of the TAG want to influence the naming, I think >>> they should weigh in on that issue. If they have a recommendation after the >>> CSSWG has settled the issue, I wouldn't expect the CSSWG to change it again. >>> >>> But at this point, let's wait for the CSSWG. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:29 PM Alex Russell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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/CAARdPYdJOGUD1g2KCDrjjui6Bu9P-CdRT5w1VgdUjq1OCy0u7g%40mail.gmail.com.
