The API owners met yesterday and discussed this intent. Our consensus was that we would like to wait until another browser has implemented and is shipping :state before we approve shipping it in Chromium. We also don't recommend spending more time on further bikeshet spec discussions for it in the meantime, and leave the spec as-is.
We think this plan is a reasonable approach to reduce work for web developers and Chromium implementers in the short term while still achieving interop in the future. On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 11:41 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hey all, > > We've spent a LOT of time discussing this one in API OWNERS, and my > disinclination to allow this to move forward remains. What we're observing > in this Intent is an anti-pattern in which: > > - Chromium engineers follow a process that is designed to put > developer needs above implementer preferences > > <https://www.w3.org/2019/09/17-components-minutes.html#:~:text=chrishtr:%20I%20think%20having%20custom%20states%20was%20the%20%231%20request%20on%20top%20of%20parts>, > explore the design space earnestly, work with developers to vet a solution, > and work to build interest with other vendors > > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/CApU9QIu3TM/m/LPKLLLahDQAJ> > . > - Other projects fail to implement and/or implement alternatives. > - The API OWNERS take a calculated risk to ship first. That is > premised on collateral the development team provides that the design solves > an important problem well, demonstrating developer support and that our > process for open development has given ample time for others to engage and > help shape the design. > - Time passes (often years). > - Without implementing themselves, other vendors demand that the > design change to achieve "consensus" within a standards body, but without > demonstrating real deficiencies in the shipped API or even feedback from > developers that we were wrong in some important way. > > > Or put another way, spec fiction is being allowed to trump real-world > problem solving, and that's not what our process is designed to facilitate. > > Not only does this pattern further escalate the costs involved in the > process to deliver a feature where we have already paid treble to > ice-break, it potentially breaks applications -- remember that we suffer > from enterprise blindness in our use counters, so it's probable that we > will also need to reach out to, e.g., Salesforce and ask them to help > collect data. This pattern also drags us away from other work that would > expand the platform for users and developers in productive ways. > > These costs may seems small on an individual feature basis, but they add > up fast and set terrible precedent. I'm *extremely* unhappy that we seem > to be engaging in more of it over the past year, particularly without > strong arguments for why the new design is superior. Even the recent debate > over this feature is largely about non-committal mild preferences: > > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980 > > At this point I've read substantially all of the minutes related to these > design choices, and this is *absolutely *late bikeshedding by folks who > haven't implemented either alternative and were widely consulted at the > time we backstopped the initial I2S. > > Per our conversation yesterday, I'm struggling to get to "yes" on this. At > a minimum, I need a stronger argument for why we should make this change > than that someone in the CSS WG had a mild preference years after the CSS > WG was first consulted on the problem. It would help if we had a commitment > from the Intent proposers to avoid this sort of change in future. Deciding > to ship this would also need to be clearly disclaimed as non-precedent, and > I'd be looking from support of the managers of these teams to prevent this > sort of make-work in future. How close are we to agreement on that? > > Best, > > Alex > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:49:09 AM UTC-7 Brian Kardell wrote: > >> I don't normally weigh in on these but I just wanted to say that I think >> this one is pretty unique for a whole bunch of reasons and it's not just an >> example of bikeshedding after shipping by a specific vendor or something. >> It's more than that. As much as I think this is important, and wanted it, >> there were a million other things to talk about re: custom elements that >> were ahead of it and it just didn't get the level of oxygen that it needed >> from many quarters, it seems to me, in order to surface the right >> thoughts. As it's picked up, over the last few years there were >> disagreements, counterpoints, etc at many stages through WHATWG, TAG, >> CSSWG... It feels like it would be good to summarize all of it somewhere - >> and I'm not even saying the decision here is "right" or something ... I'm >> just saying that I don't think it is as simple as "bikeshedding after >> shipping" implies >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-4 Chris Harrelson wrote: >> >>> Regarding why change to :state() instead of :--: as is typical, it was >>> done in order to gain consensus; in particular, the CSSWG resolution notes >>> indicate >>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980> >>> (see >>> comment from the chair) one motivation is to align with WHATWG and not end >>> up with a situation where two standards groups have opposing positions in a >>> gray-area situation and no progress is made. >>> >>> I don't think that 0.03% is a big problem to deprecate, and recommend we >>> just make the change to match a hard-won consensus and move on. It's easy >>> enough to support both syntaxes for some amount of time before removing the >>> old one. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 1:49 PM Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:24 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyas...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Apparently +Chris Wilson 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 is likely to have the strongest >>>>> opinions about this: should we add such a rule to our launch process for >>>>> CSS features? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we generally shouldn't ship CSS features before there is robust >>>> discussion and consensus at the CSSWG, and I think Chromium features have >>>> done a good job at that. The CSSWG resolution mechanism, and the various >>>> stages of W3C standardization help to build confidence about the degree of >>>> consensus and commitment, as do signals from other browser vendors. I don't >>>> think we should additionally require filing an "is X ready to ship?" issue >>>> at the CSSWG for CSS features. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Jeffrey >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:15 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyas...@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 <jyas...@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 < >>>>>>>> sligh...@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+...@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 >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CANh-dXnPrTj5PhthsMfcr5kd340pbfzuCZik1%2B7J7FC-YkKL1g%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/fa862fff-e9eb-4aad-acc3-ca0849c72b06n%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fa862fff-e9eb-4aad-acc3-ca0849c72b06n%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/CAOMQ%2Bw_td-5Jj%2BbSXQ4Cc-%2Bgu5UVK47wHNx_ZLeHEHw8DtkUSw%40mail.gmail.com.
