If I did the math correctly, that puts the likely breakage below 14%
(95% confidence) of the population, or less than 0.002% of page loads.
(Napkin math, don't quote me, but it's in that ballpark which is a good
ballpark)
LGTM1
/Daniel
On 2023-08-03 03:49, Joey Arhar wrote:
I looked at the top 20 websites here:
https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4454
I looked at the option elements which were triggering the UseCounter,
and I found that all of them seemed to have a label attribute with no
text content at some point during page load, but then when I actually
looked at them in DevTools after page load they all had text content.
None of those top 20 websites are affected by this change.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:22 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hey Joey,
We discussed this in the API owners meeting today. Given that
Firefox has succeeded in removing this quirk, we do think it's
valuable for us to attempt to follow. Thank you again for pushing
on it. Could you take a look at either 20 hits from HA, or 10
high-ranking hits
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cpjWFoXBiuFYI4zb9I7wHs7uYZ0ntbOgLwH-mgqXdEM/edit#heading=h.1m1gg72jnnrt>*
and
see if you see any actual breakage? API owners agreed today that
if you didn't (or if you saw just 1 in 20), we'd be OK proceeding
with a killswitch we can pull if necessary.
*Note chrishtr@ is looking into making ranking-based HA analysis
easier than getting BigQuery setup.
Thanks,
Rick
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:06 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org>
wrote:
Hey Joey, sorry for the delay. Yeah 0.01% puts this into the
high risk range unfortunately. If you want to proceed, the
next step would probably be to get a random sample of impacted
URLs and evaluate the severity of breakage
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit#heading=h.u5ya6jvru7dl>
and ease of adaptation
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit#heading=h.x5bhg5grhfeo>.
Maybe we'd find they are almost all pages with very subtle
layout changes which already look OK or just slightly off in
Firefox. The real risk likely comes from sites / apps designed
for blink/webkit only (enterprise, android webview, etc.). But
if you could show evidence that < 1 in 20 impacted page loads
have any meaningful breakage (i.e. <0.005% page views
impacted), then we might still be able to proceed with
appropriate webview and enterprise guards. But that obviously
has a cost, so up to you if it's better to just specify the
current quirky behavior. Maybe our efforts are better spent
trying to actively drive down quirks mode usage somehow?
Thanks for trying to clean this sort of thing up!
Rick
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:34 PM Joey Arhar
<jar...@chromium.org> wrote:
Here is the UseCounter:
https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4454
It looks like it is at 0.0103%
What do yall think?
> Personally I would be happy to approve if we had a
UseCounter with less than our small but non-trivial risk
threshold of 0.001% of page loads
Looks like its higher than this threshold :(
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 3:53 AM Yoav Weiss
<yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
Friendly ping! :)
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:13:25 PM UTC+1 Joey
Arhar wrote:
Yes, that matches my understanding. I can see on
omahaproxy that the usecounter was merged in 112
and I can see on chromiumdash that 112 goes to
stable on april 4
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:11 AM Yoav Weiss
<yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
Looked at this following the API owners
meeting and given that the usecounters
<https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4193560> landed
in 112, I think we can expect stable data
early April but not before.
Joey - does that match your understanding?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 1:04 AM Rick Byers
<rby...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 5:07 PM Simon
Pieters <zcor...@mozilla.com> wrote:
Hi folks!
Thanks for working on this, Joey.
Removing quirks where possible is
always nice!
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 7:18 PM Joey
Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> wrote:
Sounds good, I'm adding a
UseCounter here:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4193560
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:05 AM
Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org>
wrote:
Hey Joey,
Thanks for working to remove a
quirk! Although we haven't
written it into our compat
principles
<http://bit.ly/blink-compat>,
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 burden for
the platform which we should
seek to eventually eliminate.
Reading through the history
<https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2988#issuecomment-1271763702>
of WebKit not being able to
make this change due to severe
breakage in bugzilla and
seeing that we still load 12%
of pages in quirks mode
<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/2034>,
In
https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2020/markup#conclusion
the number was 3.97% of *pages* in
httparchive are in quirks mode, and if
I remember correctly, this has further
declined slightly in 2021 and 2022.
I'm not sure why there's a 3x
discrepancy between the use counter
page view number and the
httparchive pages number, though. Does
an about:blank iframe trigger the use
counter?
Wow, that is surprising to me! Typically
the biggest discrepancy comes from the
fact that usage is head-heavy with 1/3rd
of page loads being from the top 100
origins
<https://twitter.com/RickByers/status/1195342331588706306>,
and I would absolutely expect the head to
not be using quirks mode. Perhaps there's
one or two popular sites using quirks
mode? No, only http/https schemes
contribute to UseCounters IIRC so
about:blank shouldn't be the problem. Or
maybe there's some discrepancy in how
we're identifying quirky pages.
cheers,
--
Simon Pieters
https://www.mozilla.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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8ZizCwMOX_r8dKbJ44xNkih7J4Tx7z31DNnPOrmLRH%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8ZizCwMOX_r8dKbJ44xNkih7J4Tx7z31DNnPOrmLRH%2Bw%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAK6btwL%3Dw6ae2pLNYXnwO6cRRFwRuTu7wU9zdVVoxN%3DGe4fQVQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAK6btwL%3Dw6ae2pLNYXnwO6cRRFwRuTu7wU9zdVVoxN%3DGe4fQVQ%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/d947e046-6fd2-60de-84c1-7169a604490b%40gmail.com.
