2024 Q1 update: The new deprecation warnings has been in stable for multiple milestones: 118 (October 2023) to 121 (January 2024). The high usage appearance values are still getting used at similar rate. *NonStandardAppearanceValuesHighUsage*: (September 2023 -> January 2024 numbers) * inner-spin-button at 0.0256 -> 0.024 * searchfield-cancel-button at 0.058 -> 0.050 * slider-horizontal at 0.008 -> 0.010 * push-button at 0.217 -> 0.202 * square-button at 0.0027 -> 0.0032
However, looking at the highest usage URLs, they seem to be using a generic website building template. For example, many sites are using the same CSS file where the `-webkit-appearance: push-button` is set on a reset submit button. But that button isn't found in the rendered site. Maybe we need a few more UX clicks to get to that button, but even then, I estimate the appearance change wouldn't be breaking. Another data point: We have had a mismatched enum to appearance value id bug that reached stable (crbug.com/1495418). This caused many high usage values to be mapped wrongly for a month. Only one bug with one star was filled. This could be an indication that deprecating these >= 0.001 % of page loads CSS appearance values will not break websites. My plan is to start a Finch experiment slowly in M122 and monitor reported bugs. If all goes well, we can officially disable/deprecate these higher usage values in M124. Please let me know if you have reservations about this approach. Thanks. On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:35:11 PM UTC-7 Kent Tamura wrote: > LGTM3. > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:22 AM Daniel Bratell <bratel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> LGTM2 >> >> /Daniel >> On 2023-08-30 17:46, Alex Russell wrote: >> >> Thanks for being flexible here! >> >> LGTM1 to deprecate the first set of keywords (below < 0.001% use). Thanks >> for coming back to us about the second set. >> >> Best, >> >> Alex >> >> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 4:18:11 PM UTC-7 Di Zhang wrote: >> >>> Thanks to the advice above, I have done some improvements to the >>> deprecation warning and how/when it will get shown to the user. >>> >>> After discussing with the DOM team, we have decided to split the feature >>> into two parts. We will divide *NonStandardAppearanceValues* into two >>> features: >>> *NonStandardAppearanceValuesLowUsage*: All keywords currently at usage >>> < 0.001. >>> * media-slider at 0.000361 >>> * media-sliderthumb at 0.000187 >>> * media-volume-slider at 0.000143 >>> * media-volume-sliderthumb at 0.000109 >>> * sliderthumb-horizontal at 0.000182 >>> * sliderthumb-vertical at 0.000014 >>> >>> These will get removed as part of 118 and go through a slow rollout >>> release through Finch (before enabling in stable) >>> >>> *NonStandardAppearanceValuesHighUsage*: All keywords currently at usage >>> >= 0.001. >>> * inner-spin-button at 0.0256 >>> * searchfield-cancel-button at 0.058 >>> * slider-horizontal at 0.008 >>> * push-button at 0.217 >>> * square-button at 0.0027 >>> >>> These will need a few milestones to show deprecation issue and should be >>> re-evaluated (maybe around M120). We might find ways to reduce the numbers >>> by targeting some CSS import or popular sites. >>> Please let me know if this plan sounds good and I will update the >>> chromestatus description accordingly. >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 2:34:39 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: >>> >>>> That sounds good! Considering that the number in the use counter is >>>> already so low, it should be enough to show that a majority of the users >>>> only use the value that will not be removed and I'd be happy to see this >>>> ship. >>>> >>>> /Daniel >>>> On 2023-07-27 22:01, Di Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I had a talk with Chris and Mason, who helped me better understand the >>>> steps for 2-3. I will aggregate more metrics data and share them in a >>>> google doc here soon. >>>> * What are the websites that uses these values most >>>> * What elements are they using the CSS property on, are there rendering >>>> differences once disabled? >>>> * Why are some of these value's counter higher than the aggregated >>>> WebFeature::kCSSValueAppearanceNonStandard >>>> Thanks, >>>> Di >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-7 Di Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>> It's great to have support on this deprecation. Since we feel a >>>>> deprecation period of 117 to 120 is too short, I just removed the target >>>>> milestone. It can be updated once we have better metric pulses. >>>>> >>>>> For suggestion 1, the wpt test appearance-cssom-001.html >>>>> <http://wpt.live/css/css-ui/appearance-cssom-001.html?include=Invalid>actually >>>>> >>>>> list all of them. >>>>> For Chrome, we are failing the 11 listed on this feature as well as 1 >>>>> slider-vertical (for both appearance and -webkit-appearance). >>>>> For Firefox, everything is passing: it only supports standard >>>>> appearance values. >>>>> For Safari, it is failing for the newly added 3 push-button, >>>>> slider-horizontal, square-button [1], 1 internal apple-pay-button, and >>>>> the >>>>> same 1 slider-vertical. >>>>> >>>>> WebFeature::kCSSValueAppearanceNonStandard is currently tracking for >>>>> all non-standard values, including slider-vertical. I could make them >>>>> into >>>>> 2 different WebFeatures as I suspect slider-vertical is high usage value >>>>> (as it affects how <input type=range> gets rendered). Splitting it might >>>>> decrease the usage percentage. >>>>> >>>>> Suggestions 2 and 3 are great, I don't know how to best start on them. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8506#issuecomment-1515062326 >>>>> was >>>>> resolved April 2023 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Di >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-7 Alex Russell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey Di, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for taking compat seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> We chatted about this at API OWNERS this morning, and there'd broad >>>>>> support for the deprecation. There's also concern about the relatively >>>>>> short deprecation window, but maybe there are some ways we can build >>>>>> confidence? Some ideas that were contributed by Mike, Yoav, and Chris: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Perhaps we can look to see which keywords in this proposal are >>>>>> unsupported in other engines? E.g., if it's not compatible to use it >>>>>> across >>>>>> Gecko, WebKit, and Blink today, perhaps it's easier to remove. >>>>>> - A spot check of the big users of these values to understand if >>>>>> there are patterns. Perhaps there's a single library, or embedded >>>>>> script, >>>>>> that represents the bulk of use, which might lead us to some quick >>>>>> wins for >>>>>> driving down use (e.g., targeted outreach). >>>>>> - DevRel might be able to help spread the word about deprecation. >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, I think there's support for marking this as deprecated >>>>>> quickly, but it might be better if we agree to revisit the removal date >>>>>> based on evidence in the future. WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 4:03:15 PM UTC-7 Di Zhang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. The counter does feel high, I will follow >>>>>>> the Deprecation steps [1] and extend the milestones (likely DevTrial >>>>>>> 117 >>>>>>> and Shipping 3 milestones later at 120). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/frame/deprecation/README.md >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 11:29:06 PM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks!! So IIUC, any usage will result in rendering changes? If >>>>>>>> that's indeed the case, I think it makes sense to try and drive usage >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>> before changing behavior.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:08 AM TAMURA, Kent <tk...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Valid appearance keywords have some side-effects even though they >>>>>>>>> have no special painting. >>>>>>>>> * Skip border painting >>>>>>>>> * 'display' property value is changed to 'inline-block' or >>>>>>>>> 'block'. So some properties such as 'width' 'height' are not ignored. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <p> >>>>>>>>> <span style="border:2px solid red; height:3em; background:yellow; >>>>>>>>> appearance:media-slider;">Valid</span> >>>>>>>>> <span style="border:2px solid red; height:3em; background:yellow; >>>>>>>>> appearance:foobar;">Invalid</span> >>>>>>>>> </p> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:00 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> tkent@ - can you expand on the compat risk? It's not immediately >>>>>>>>>> obvious to me what these apps were doing that resulted in a >>>>>>>>>> rendering >>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023, 03:45 TAMURA, Kent <tk...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Removing appearance keywords which have no painting code >>>>>>>>>>> might have compatibility issues. We removed the keyword "caret" in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> past, and it caused issues like crbug.com/944023. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The counter for this is >>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4416. >>>>>>>>>>> The value is 0.005 - 0.02. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I recommend having a deprecation period before removal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 3:54 AM Di Zhang <dizha...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails dizha...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#appearance-switching >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since only standard appearance keywords should be supported, we >>>>>>>>>>>> are removing the appearance (and -webkit-appearance) keywords that >>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be supported anymore: * inner-spin-button * media-slider >>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>> media-sliderthumb * media-volume-slider * media-volume-sliderthumb >>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>> push-button * searchfield-cancel-button * slider-horizontal * >>>>>>>>>>>> sliderthumb-horizontal * sliderthumb-vertical * square-button Note >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> value "slider-vertical" will not be removed as part of this patch >>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>> used for allowing <input type=range> vertical. It will be removed >>>>>>>>>>>> once >>>>>>>>>>>> feature FormControlsVerticalWritingModeSupport is enabled in >>>>>>>>>>>> stable. >>>>>>>>>>>> Previously, if using any of the above keywords, a console warning >>>>>>>>>>>> will be >>>>>>>>>>>> shown, but the keyword will be recognized as a valid value. With >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> feature enabled, there will be no console warning. The appearance >>>>>>>>>>>> property >>>>>>>>>>>> will be ignored and set to the empty string. The use count (under >>>>>>>>>>>> WebFeature::kCSSValueAppearanceNonStandard) is at 0.005985% as of >>>>>>>>>>>> July 2023 >>>>>>>>>>>> [3]. [1] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#appearance-switching [2] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8506#issuecomment-1515062326 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTP-wXiSV9_dSbbs4OEH-XqP0hakmoTwmEBkEJ-EAI3vDmlXxWMdHvCYl01QqUHm7q6iw8ubK0d3xk1/pub >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component Blink>CSS >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3ECSS> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This feature only affects the reflection in computed style. >>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, while it is possible to set an appearance value with >>>>>>>>>>>> one of >>>>>>>>>>>> these non-standard values, it will not affect the appearance of >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> element. Now, if appearance is set to one of these non-standard >>>>>>>>>>>> values, the >>>>>>>>>>>> returned computed appearance value will be auto. It is unlikely >>>>>>>>>>>> websites >>>>>>>>>>>> depend on this information: this deprecation should be web >>>>>>>>>>>> compatible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Gecko*: Shipped/Shipping >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ergonomics >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are no other platform APIS this will be used in tandem >>>>>>>>>>>> with and this will not make it hard for chrome to maintain good >>>>>>>>>>>> performance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Activation >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There should be no challenge for developers to take advantage >>>>>>>>>>>> of this feature immediately. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> N/A >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The non-standard appearance values we are removing are already >>>>>>>>>>>> not listed in the autocomplete in DevTools. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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://flags RemoveNonStandardAppearanceValue >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finch feature name >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Non-finch justification None >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=924486 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on desktop 117 >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on desktop 115 >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on Android 117 >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on Android 115 >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on WebView 117 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/5066630972833792 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/CA%2BSS7eAE3At9QiJ-XymVFxUc7Z2%2B06xGTBOk%2B%3D7sGGNHvt5HSg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CA%2BSS7eAE3At9QiJ-XymVFxUc7Z2%2B06xGTBOk%2B%3D7sGGNHvt5HSg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> TAMURA Kent >>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer, Google >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 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/CAGH7WqGmooLg362nFsWDC7JaYt3RaztUfccdtT5%2BA4_QFNJWJA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGH7WqGmooLg362nFsWDC7JaYt3RaztUfccdtT5%2BA4_QFNJWJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> TAMURA Kent >>>>>>>>> Software Engineer, Google >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>> 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/08b21853-52aa-4eaf-8224-a69aa747b665n%40chromium.org >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/08b21853-52aa-4eaf-8224-a69aa747b665n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> > > -- > TAMURA Kent > Software Engineer, Google > > > -- 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/8a9261dd-eab1-4b59-acf9-e43930aab48en%40chromium.org.
