Apparently +Chris Wilson <cwi...@google.com> had part of this discussion with Alan Stearns in April at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8730#issuecomment-1524167658, and the suggestion was that if a CSS spec for a feature is "unstable" (meaning 'not at CR'?), then we should either post "we're about to send an intent" to the last issue discussing it, or file an "Is X ready to ship?" issue. I think +Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> is likely to have the strongest opinions about this: should we add such a rule to our launch process for CSS features?
Jeffrey On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:15 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:08 PM Joey Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > I'd like to understand better how we wound up shipping :--foo and then >> having the CSSWG ask us to change it to :state(foo) instead, and what we >> could do in the future to avoid it happening again. >> >> I think if this was specced before shipping that would have been better >> and is a practice that I (and we?) currently follow, but this was shipped a >> number of years ago. >> > > Yeah, good point: it's totally possible that our more recent process rigor > is sufficient, and we don't need anything new to prevent this in the > future. No matter what, we should expect the occasional old feature to pop > up and be an exception. > > I do think that it's worth finding a way to write down your current > practice, so that it doesn't regress if you switch teams. I think you mean > that you do "hold off on shipping CSS features until they land in an > official draft", so let's try to record that if it's our idea of the > solution. > > >> > As far as I can see, nobody asked for the ergonomic evidence that >> https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/#browser-engine-reviews >> says we can expect after Chrome has shipped a feature. >> >> This was my bad, I didn't realize or didn't completely consider >> usecounters before I presented the name change to the CSSWG. >> I am hoping that with an answer from the API owners, I can go back to the >> CSSWG and potentially change it back. >> There is still no merged spec in HTML or CSS for this feature yet, but I >> have open PRs in both specs. >> > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:00 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 on the API owners discussing this. >>> >>> I'd like to understand better how we wound up shipping :--foo and then >>> having the CSSWG ask us to change it to :state(foo) instead, and what we >>> could do in the future to avoid it happening again. >>> >>> It looks like the initial proposal was :state(foo); the CSSWG asked to >>> change it to :--foo in 2020 >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-591547956>; >>> we shipped that in M90 in 2021 >>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/6537562418053120> (with a feature >>> entry that still says :state 🙃); then Ryosuke suggested undoing that >>> change in January 2023 >>> <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467#issuecomment-1381645661>, and >>> the CSSWG accepted that suggestion in August >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980>. >>> As far as I can see, nobody asked for the ergonomic evidence that >>> https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/#browser-engine-reviews >>> says we can expect after Chrome has shipped a feature. It doesn't seem like >>> this feature was so contentious that the team needed to use a name change >>> as a bargaining chip, so we should probably have insisted on more evidence >>> before agreeing with the change. Maybe that's still a "should" instead of a >>> "should have": Joey's second email >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/JvpHoUfhJYE/m/wPAHJzIvAQAJ> >>> might >>> say that the CSSWG's resolution >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980> >>> about this isn't as committed as it appears to an external observer? >>> >>> Should we generally hold off on shipping CSS features until they land in >>> an official draft, or even in a CR? Should we be clearer to the CSSWG when >>> we decide to ship ahead of their consensus that the bar for changes is >>> going up? There's not good support for this kind of per-WG restriction in >>> Chrome Status yet, but maybe it'll fit near >>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard/issues/3390... >>> >>> Jeffrey >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:32 PM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> hrm, this is another instance of bikeshedding after shipping, and I'm >>>> not inclined to approve. Perhaps we can discuss at next week's API OWNERs >>>> meeting? >>>> >>>> Adding others who I know are interested in this topic. >>>> >>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:16:13 AM UTC-7 Joey Arhar wrote: >>>> >>>>> The spec for the new syntax hasn't been merged yet, I haven't finished >>>>> implementing it in chromium yet, and I don't have estimated milestones >>>>> yet, >>>>> but I'd like to get the API owners thoughts on whether this deprecation >>>>> would be acceptable to help guide the spec discussion. >>>>> >>>>> I did some analysis of the top 8 websites on the chromestatus entry to >>>>> see what the breakage would be like: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHoO12ts0E-NQQH9AMwR2sKAIV0OPB-FA_8QXMpolz0/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> I found that most of them had the affected custom elements behind >>>>> display:none rules that I had to manually remove in order to use them. >>>>> There was only one website where there was actual breakage by default, in >>>>> which case the carousel buttons didn't work on firefox and safari. If the >>>>> new syntax is just for the CSS property and we keep CustomStateSet the >>>>> same, then the affected website's buttons would continue to work but >>>>> whatever custom styles they have (which I couldn't trigger) wouldn't apply >>>>> anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think that this breakage would not be bad especially if >>>>> we keep CustomStateSet the same, and I kind of like :state(foo) more than >>>>> :--foo. However, I might have not made it clear in the spec discussions >>>>> yet >>>>> that we have already shipped :--foo by default for several years. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:15 AM Joey Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Contact emailsjar...@chromium.org >>>>>> >>>>>> ExplainerNone >>>>>> >>>>>> Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467 >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary >>>>>> >>>>>> CSS custom state, which allows custom elements to expose their own >>>>>> pseudo-classes, was shipped here: >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/dJibhmzE73o/m/VT-NceIhAAAJ >>>>>> >>>>>> This feature has not been implemented in gecko or webkit yet. I >>>>>> recently made an effort to spec this feature in CSSWG and WHATWG, but >>>>>> there >>>>>> was pushback to change the syntax back from :--foo to :state(foo), and >>>>>> the >>>>>> CSSWG has resolved to do this as well: >>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805 >>>>>> >>>>>> The UseCounter is currently at 0.03% >>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3796 >>>>>> >>>>>> This deprecation will have a window where we support both the old >>>>>> syntax and the new syntax so websites can switch to the new one. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Blink componentBlink>HTML>CustomElements >>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EHTML%3ECustomElements> >>>>>> >>>>>> TAG reviewNone >>>>>> >>>>>> TAG review statusNot applicable >>>>>> >>>>>> Risks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>> >>>>>> Websites which are currently using the old syntax and don't migrate >>>>>> to the new syntax will have CSS selectors which become invalid which >>>>>> would >>>>>> impact the styling of their custom elements. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>>>> >>>>>> *WebKit*: No signal ( >>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467#issuecomment-1381645661) >>>>>> >>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>>> >>>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>>> >>>>>> Activation >>>>>> >>>>>> Switching to the new syntax should be quite easy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> None >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>> >>>>>> None >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>> ?Yes >>>>>> >>>>>> Flag name on chrome://flagsNone >>>>>> >>>>>> Finch feature nameNone >>>>>> >>>>>> Non-finch justificationNone >>>>>> >>>>>> Requires code in //chrome?False >>>>>> >>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>> >>>>>> No milestones specified >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/5140610730426368 >>>>>> >>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>> <https://chromestatus.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/CANh-dXnPrTj5PhthsMfcr5kd340pbfzuCZik1%2B7J7FC-YkKL1g%40mail.gmail.com.
