On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:50 AM Noam Helfman <noam.helf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to point out that Microsoft Excel Online utilizes zoom CSS > property heavily to perform the Excel grid zoom operations. > Removing it would completely break our zoom functionality in the product > and impact 100s of millions of users. > Thanks for sharing Noam, that's good to know! So is Excel Online unsupported or completely broken for Firefox users then? On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:05 AM Christoph Nakazawa < christoph.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > In a previous response it was stated that the removal of this property > leads to only a small amount of code being removed, which I assume also > means that there is little impact on reducing complexity in the engine. > Maybe I missed it but is there an in-depth explanation of the intention and > impact behind this change? >From my perspective as an outside observer / approver, the strongest argument I see for doing this is cross-browser interoperability. That could also be achieved by getting a specification and tests written and support added to Firefox. I don't personally think we should accept the status quo of Chrome supporting this unspecified API indefinitely as it doesn't meet our standards <https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/> for "plausible interoperability" between engines. It looks like +Rossen on the Edge team started an effort to specify the feature <https://github.com/atanassov/css-zoom>, but it stalled 8 years ago. If this feature is important to Microsoft Office, then one option could be for the Edge team to complete that work. > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:42:17 PM UTC+3 Chris Harrelson wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:01 PM Alex Russell <sligh...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that this is probably too risky right now. Are you willing to >>> modify the plan you posted to gate #4 on a UKM analysis and/or driving use >>> below a negotiated threshold, Chris? >> >> >> I can do the UKM analysis if that's needed. As for threshold, I think a >> randomized analysis percentage multiplied by the current UseCounter is good >> enough if the result is below some "safe enough" threshold. The review of >> 62 sites, plus the fact that Firefox does not support this feature, already >> makes me much more positive on success among the sites that are measured by >> use counters, and some randomized UKM analysis could do even more. >> >> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:15:32 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: >>> >> Comments below, but here is a concrete shipping plan proposal: >>>> >>>> 1. Blog post describing what is happening, why, and how to fix your >>>> code. >>>> 2. Start a deprecation for 3 milestones (M114-116), with a devtools >>>> console warning. Notify enterprises and webview clients of the deprecation. >>>> 3. In parallel with #2: turn it off now via finch for canary/dev, then >>>> later beta, to see if we get bug reports. >>>> 4. Assuming no bug reports that raise new concerns, ship the change in >>>> M117. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 9:01 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 6:53 PM Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mike said: *"It would also be good to go through all duplicates and >>>>>> "See Also" bugs linked at >>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390936 >>>>>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390936> and see how we fare >>>>>> with a build that has zoom disabled."* >>>>>> >>>>>> Good idea. I checked all 37 of the sites referenced from that issue. >>>>>> I found only 3 that were even somewhat broken, and only 2 where there was >>>>>> something substantial (an "8-ball" image that was too big, and a facebook >>>>>> login that was cut off at some viewport sizes). Most sites didn't have >>>>>> any >>>>>> zoom at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also updated the "use cases" section with more use cases found by >>>>>> reviewing the sites. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yoav said:* "Is it possible to also expose the usecounter as UKM, >>>>>> and see the usage distribution? Given the high usage percentage, it can >>>>>> be >>>>>> reassuring to see that a) No large sites get broken by this b) Long tail >>>>>> sampling from UKM matches what y'all saw in HA"* >>>>>> >>>>>> It's possible. Based on the data I've provided (including response to >>>>>> Mike above), do you think it's needed? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:39 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, you'll have a flag so we can kill-switch it if we see any >>>>>>> non-trivial breakage in practice, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Already in place. CSSZoom is a base::Feature in addition to a >>>>>> RuntimeEnabledFeature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> WebView seems particularly risky, perhaps we should separate that >>>>>>> out and leave it enabled on WebView at least to start? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm willing to do that as a first step. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What about enterprise, likely to be higher risk / needing a >>>>>>> mitigation strategy? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll add an enterprise flag for it, and ask for this change to be >>>>>> highlighted in enterprise release notes. WDYT, good enough? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Works for me. >>>>> >>>>> From the HA analysis, were you able to get any upper bound on the >>>>>>> fraction of sites with significant (i.e. usability impacting) breakage? >>>>>>> Eg. >>>>>>> can we spot check 100 pages that hit the counter to see if any look >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> broken? Alternately the UKM analysis Yoav suggests could help. I've been >>>>>>> planning on figuring out how to do a UKM usage distribution analysis - >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> might make a good candidate. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I spot checked 62 sites from HTTPArchive and from the Mozilla bug. In >>>>>> my view, none were terribly broken, and almost all were unaffected or had >>>>>> trivial changes. According to foolip's methodology >>>>>> <https://sample-size.net/confidence-interval-proportion/> with N=62 >>>>>> and x=0, that means that we've reduced the risk from the use counter of >>>>>> 0.5% to 0.028%. >>>>>> >>>>>> To get to 0.001% I'd need a lot more N, technically speaking. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, in basically all of the cases zoom was applied either to >>>>>> very few elements or to the body; in the latter the site still renders >>>>>> fine >>>>>> (because browser zoom uses the same technique), and for the others it's >>>>>> at >>>>>> best cosmetic in almost all cases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's great to hear. Given the usage is pretty high and there's at >>>>> least some uncertainty among developers with how to replace their use of >>>>> zoom (Christoph's note), WDYT about doing a blog post warning about the >>>>> removal of zoom and showing how to replace it with transforms? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, I can do that. Note that some sites already put -moz-transform >>>> and zoom in their style sheet, so there is evidence that transform works ok >>>> for some use cases. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, should we consider a deprecation period with deprecation >>>>> warnings in the console and available to the reporting API? Or is that >>>>> likely to be so noisy with most cases being false positives that it would >>>>> be net harmful do you think? >>>>> >>>> >>>> A deprecation period makes sense. (Note that Firefox already has >>>> warnings in their devtools not to use this feature.) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 4:55 PM Morten Stenshorne < >>>>>>> mste...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:45 PM Morten Stenshorne < >>>>>>>> mste...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> writes: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:09 PM PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Any alternatives? I thought there was a section in the intent >>>>>>>> templates for that... >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > One alternative for the use case mentioned in my earlier email >>>>>>>> is to >>>>>>>> > > apply a CSS transform instead. This will magnify the subtree >>>>>>>> visually >>>>>>>> > > but not cause a zoom-style layout change. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The fact that a CSS transform doesn't affect layout, whereas >>>>>>>> 'zoom' >>>>>>>> > does, means that we'll paginate (fragment) properly with 'zoom', >>>>>>>> but not >>>>>>>> > with transforms, since they are applied after fragmentation [1], >>>>>>>> causing >>>>>>>> > content to be sliced across fragmentainer boundaries, and the >>>>>>>> actual >>>>>>>> > page/column breaks (as far as layout is concerned) are shifted >>>>>>>> away from >>>>>>>> > the fragmentainer edges visually, and will appear in the middle >>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> > page/column, for instance. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-break-3/#transforms (never mind >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> > example there; it's not too relevant for this discussion, but I >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> > provide one if you want) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Agreed that this is a difference. If a developer wants the result >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> > flow through fragmentation, they'll have to use the second >>>>>>>> alternative >>>>>>>> > I suggested. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > But in terms of web compat, I don't think this situation is >>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>> > to worry about (e.g. I didn't see any fragmentation when >>>>>>>> reviewing 25 >>>>>>>> > random sites linked to from chromestatus.com). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But as soon as someone prints any of those sites, there'll be >>>>>>>> fragmentation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, I couldn't find anything bad on those sites, either. I >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> thinking that if it's actually okay to replace zoom with a scale >>>>>>>> transform, we really need authors to make such elements monolithic >>>>>>>> (because any break point inserted inside a transformed element will >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> likely than not end up in the middle of some page, rather than at an >>>>>>>> actual page boundary). So I changed the engine locally to treat >>>>>>>> zoom != >>>>>>>> 1 as monolithic. But that didn't make any of sites that I tried >>>>>>>> look any >>>>>>>> worse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > Another alternative is for the developer to multiply the >>>>>>>> numbers in >>>>>>>> > > their CSS properties via calc + variables. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > That alternative should always work, but more cumbersome for the >>>>>>>> > authors, I suppose? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Yes, a bit more cumbersome, but interoperable across all browser >>>>>>>> engines. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 1:03 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Contact emails >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > chri...@chromium.org >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Specification >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/zoom >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Summary >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Removes support for the non-standard "zoom" CSS property. >>>>>>>> This CSS property causes computed lengths for an element to be >>>>>>>> multiplied by >>>>>>>> > > the specified zoom factor. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Blink component >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Blink>CSS >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > TAG review >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > TAG review status >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Not applicable >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Risks >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > This feature is only available in Webkit and Blink-based >>>>>>>> browsers, and has been present in Chrome since the beginning. Usage is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> little above >>>>>>>> > > 0.5% of page loads: >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3578 >>>>>>>> However, research shows that sites in HTTPArchive >>>>>>>> > > triggering the feature mostly don't even seem to use it, and >>>>>>>> those that do appear to always use it in a way that works fine without >>>>>>>> zoom >>>>>>>> applied >>>>>>>> > > - worst case, just a very minor change to the size of a tiny >>>>>>>> number of UI elements, but the UX is basically the same. See: >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmbXpjAcXAht2ufi7bNKy-rbVNveqaf0UzeYg_DIMNA/edit# >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (Firefox never supported the feature.) >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > WebKit: No signal ( >>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/170) >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Web developers: Some web developers like the feature, in >>>>>>>> particular for the use case of zooming in content in a legible way with >>>>>>>> responsive >>>>>>>> > > design. See comments regarding that in this issue; >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5623 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Other signals: The CSSWG has decided to not specify this >>>>>>>> feature: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5623 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Ergonomics >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > See "other views" section. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Activation >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > N/A >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Security >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > 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? >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Maybe. WebView-based apps might use this feature. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Debuggability >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Sites should be able to see that zoom no longer applies to >>>>>>>> elements in devtools, though there is no warning planned. >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Yes >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests? >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > No >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Flag name >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > CSSZoom >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > False >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Sample links >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > https://output.jsbin.com/yimuwax >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Estimated milestones >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Shipping on desktop 114 >>>>>>>> > > DevTrial on desktop 114 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Shipping on Android 114 >>>>>>>> > > DevTrial on Android 114 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Shipping on WebView 114 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > 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). >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > https://chromestatus.com/feature/6535859207143424 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > 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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw_2izF%2BTzHvALsKSxD_uLds%2BPAD7fLtvpX4Cwe7sTwU7g%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABc02_%2Br8k-q-bKWGFKxgNbSy97UKGf7VUSMnrnURBJHor-x_w%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Morten Stenshorne, Software developer, >>>>>>>> > Blink/Layout, Google, Oslo, Norway >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > 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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/87pm83knwv.fsf%40bud.servebeer.com >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Morten Stenshorne, Software developer, >>>>>>>> Blink/Layout, Google, Oslo, Norway >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/87leiqkz3o.fsf%40bud.servebeer.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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-XO6eyfHLNFJGf2RNL%3D8-4i2%3DoNCjK6X5MfB9ZCOaUfw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-XO6eyfHLNFJGf2RNL%3D8-4i2%3DoNCjK6X5MfB9ZCOaUfw%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8khSiw2o7dZ5S6qUjQsmdJ6XUb49q_a5NH1Pn7%2BmyA%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8khSiw2o7dZ5S6qUjQsmdJ6XUb49q_a5NH1Pn7%2BmyA%3Dw%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4c24d7fe-7e68-4b8f-b16c-814d68667ac2n%40chromium.org >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4c24d7fe-7e68-4b8f-b16c-814d68667ac2n%40chromium.org?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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8h-bHYdodsoL56EF-u36J0-G1w0rcUvqDieCYR3oeUGw%40mail.gmail.com.
