I'd like, once again, to emphasise that this change is not strictly necessary and the bikeshedding is against policy. I'm not sure why we're doing this instead of introducing the new behaviour behind the old name and holding that line.
Best, Alex On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:44:01 AM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 2:39 AM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> That sounds fine to me. Side question: would it be possible to treat >> shadowroot as a legacy alias of shadowrootmode, in case usage doesn't go >> down? >> > Yes, I believe that would likely be web compatible. The difference in > behavior between the two attributes is subtle and not likely to cause > issues, so in the worst case, we could go down this road. I'm still hoping > it's possible to remove `shadowroot` though. I'd be surprised if too many > sites are using `shadowroot` without feature detection, given that it's > Chromium only. But I'll keep that idea in my back pocket, thanks. > > Thanks, > Mason > > > >> On 8/14/23 7:09 PM, Mason Freed wrote: >> >> I'm checking back in on this deprecation thread. In the intervening 5 >> milestones, the use counter for the deprecated attribute >> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3196> has >> unfortunately increased, rather than decreased. The old attribute is seen >> on 0.025% of page loads, just slightly more than the new shadowrootmode >> attribute >> <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4421> which >> is at 0.02%. I'm adding a UKM to look into which sites are the culprits, >> but I'd also like to start Finch-disabling the feature for a portion of >> Canary/Dev and maybe Beta users, to suss out problems and improve >> visibility of this deprecation to site owners. We're now about 3 months out >> from 119 (the target removal milestone) going to stable. Any objections? >> >> Thanks, >> Mason >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:36:25 PM UTC-8 Mason Freed wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:33 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That uptick may suggest a single large entity that started using this, >>>> and may be easy to move to the new attribute. >>>> Have you tried turning the usecounter into a UKM >>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:components/page_load_metrics/browser/observers/use_counter/ukm_features.cc;l=32?q=usecounter%20ukm&ss=chromium> >>>> >>>> to try and see where the usage is coming from? >>>> >>> >>> Agreed, that uptick is likely a single party. My hope is that it will go >>> back down as that entity moves to the new attribute. Adding a UKM sounds >>> like a reasonable idea - I'll do that if I don't see a down-trend in the >>> usecounter data soon. >>> >>> >>>> The other alternative is that some developer documentation is pointing >>>> at the old attribute name. Can you verify that's not the case? >>>> >>> >>> Indeed that's very likely. Our own blog post >>> <https://web.dev/declarative-shadow-dom/> still describes the old >>> attribute. (I'm working on getting that updated.) >>> >>> >>>> Otherwise, we typically prefer to have deprecation messages with clear >>>> milestones for their removal date. It seems to me that a year may be a lot >>>> for this. Would you be comfortable with setting the removal date for 6 >>>> milestones ahead? Maybe the UKM analysis can change our thinking here? >>>> >>> >>> I'm reasonably comfortable with targeting 6 milestones out. That'd be >>> roughly M118 as the last version that supports the old `shadowroot` >>> attribute, and M119 as the first that doesn't. And closer to the deadline >>> we can re-evaluate usage and make sure it's low enough for comfort. Does >>> that sound reasonable? If so, I'll update the documentation and console >>> messages accordingly. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mason >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:38 PM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:19 PM Jason Robbins <jrobb...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:14:48 PM UTC-8 >>>>>> yoav...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>> +Jason Robbins - FYI, this didn't make it to the chromestatus tool. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have an idea about what went wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Intent to deprecate" is the subject line that is expected for the >>>>>> first stage in the deprecation process. It was detected as such, but >>>>>> that >>>>>> stage does not require any review. Based on this thread and the >>>>>> contents >>>>>> of the feature entry it looks like the final stage was what needed to be >>>>>> reviewed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry - this was my fault. The stages of deprecation are kind of >>>>> different, and the two options I had for this "deprecation" (not >>>>> "removal") >>>>> were "Draft Ready for Trial email" and "Draft Intent to Ship email". I >>>>> chose the latter and renamed the subject line to "Intent to Deprecate". I >>>>> hadn't realized we had tooling look at these emails. I guess the right >>>>> thing was to choose the "Ready for Trial" email template, and not change >>>>> the subject line. Perhaps a suggestion would be to rename those links or >>>>> add help text explaining which one is appropriate at each stage for a >>>>> deprecation/removal intent? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Mason >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The final stage detects an intent email with the subject line "Intent >>>>>> to ship" or "Intent to remove". The launching-features page uses >>>>>> "Intent >>>>>> to ship" for the final stage of a deprecation, and when we generate the >>>>>> email preview we use that subject line, but I'm guessing that it sounded >>>>>> wrong so Mason edited it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would probably be better if chromestatus generated a preview with >>>>>> the subject line "Intent to remove" and we updated launching-features to >>>>>> use that wording too. I am tracking the issue here: >>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/2749 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> jason! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >> 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/5d29f2c2-44ce-4ca0-8f96-e2de71399871n%40chromium.org >> >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5d29f2c2-44ce-4ca0-8f96-e2de71399871n%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/a9e30743-07ce-40b4-b3f1-7aaf171f5b33n%40chromium.org.
