On 3/22/24 1:37 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:11 AM Zheda Chen <zheda.c...@intel.com> wrote:
The privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability gates are requested
on Chrome Status. Testing gate to be requested later.
Thanks - we've been asked to not send LGTMs until all bits have been
requested. Can you let us know when Testing is?
"Unimportant" cross origin frames means they are cross-origin,
visible but use non-large proportion (<75%) of page's visible area
and have not received a user gesture. All 3 conditions should be
met. The criteria are too long so we use "unimportant" concept here.
Thank you - that's much more clear to me now.
This intervention is spec-compliant. The spec mentions "the
SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not guarantee that timers will run
exactly on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, other tasks, etc, are
to be expected". The wait length of time is
implementation-defined, "which is intended to allow user agents to
pad timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage of the device".
In Safari, DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames are
aligned to 30ms after reaching max nesting level (>=5). In
Firefox, all DOM timers of frames (both same origin and cross
origin) are aligned to 16ms. See details in"Interoperability and
Compatibility Risks", "Safari views", "Firefox views".
I believe the question Mike asked is not if this is spec compliant,
but if the specifics of this should be more tightly specified, given
that both WebKit and Chromium find a similar intervention useful.
Right - that's my question. I also asked how similar this change is to
whatever Safari implements - do they also align wakeups of JS timers for
cross-origin, < 75% of viewport, frames that haven't yet received a user
gesture? You previously wrote "non-interacted cross origin frames" for
WebKit. Is there also a viewport condition?
On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 1:27:16 AM UTC+8
mike...@chromium.org wrote:
You should be able to see all the various bits for approvals
in your chromestatus entry now, can you fill them out please?
There have been a few questions/comments about the lack of
clarity of what "unimportant cross-origin frames" are. What
exactly is the definition? You mention that Safari has a
similar intervention - how similar is it? Do we know? I wonder
if there is alignment for this "unimportant cross-origin
frame" concept, if we shouldn't specify that somehow.
On 3/15/24 2:58 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
*Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for
unimportant cross-origin frames*
Contact emails
zheda...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
Summary
Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant
cross-origin frames. Currently, DOM timers <32ms are all
opt-out from AlignWakeUps [1] due to performance concerns.
This is very conservative and actually some unimportant
frames are eligible to use JS timer alignment. WebKit uses
the policy to align DOM timer of non-interacted cross origin
frames to 30ms. This feature adds JavaScript timer wake up
alignment for unimportant frames on foreground pages.
Unimportant frames means they are cross origin, visible but
have non-large proportion of page’s visible area, and have no
user interaction. The alignment interval is 32ms. [1]
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4589092
Blink component
Blink>PerformanceAPIs>Timers
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%3ETimers>
TAG review
None
TAG review status
Not applicable
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
"Other vendors already have interoperable implementation"
Safari has a similar intervention. DOM timers of
non-interacted cross origin frames are aligned to 30ms. In
Firefox, all DOM timers (both same-origin and cross-origin)
in foreground pages would be aligned to 16ms. "A mature
specification in the relevant standards body" This
intervention is spec-compliant. The spec mentions "the
SetTimeout/SetInterval API does not guarantee that timers
will run exactly on schedule. Delays due to CPU load, other
tasks, etc, are to be expected. ". The wait length of time is
implementation-defined, "which is intended to allow user
agents to pad timeouts as needed to optimize the power usage
of the device. "
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
"A shared test suite for that specification" It isn't clear
what should be tested specifically for this intervention
since the spec allows waiting for an "implementation-defined"
length.
/Gecko/: Shipped/Shipping
In Firefox, all DOM timers of frames (both same origin and
cross origin) are aligned to 16ms
/WebKit/: Shipped/Shipping
In Safari, DOM timers of non-interacted cross origin frames
are aligned to 30ms after reaching max nesting level (>=5)
/Web developers/: No signals
/Other signals/:
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, ChromeOS, 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
This intervention doesn't require changes to the spec. Timers
are already covered by Web Platform Tests.
Flag name on chrome://flags
None
Finch feature name
ThrottleUnimportantFrameTimers
Requires code in //chrome?
False
Tracking bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028
Launch bug
https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40942028
Estimated milestones
Shipping on desktop
123
DevTrial on desktop
121
Shipping on Android
123
DevTrial on Android
121
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/5106220399853568
Links to previous Intent discussions
This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status
<https://chromestatus.com/>.
On Friday, March 15, 2024 at 6:24:06 AM UTC+8
mike...@chromium.org wrote:
The privacy and security teams review all intents, so
requesting reviews and answering the relevant
questionnaires is the best path forward.
Looking forward to the new I2S - thanks!
On 3/14/24 11:22 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
More details are updated in ChromeStatus, including
interoperability and compatibility risks, Safari/Firefox
views, web platform tests. It compares the behaviors
across different browser vendors.
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
Will send the updated "intent to ship" to this thread
later if it looks good.
AFAIK, I don't see potential privacy/security issues, so
can i set "security review status" and "privacy review
status" to "not applicable"? Please let us know if you
have any concerns.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 10:00:35 AM UTC+8
dom...@chromium.org wrote:
Can you fill out the interoperability and
compatibility risks section here? I don't think
standards position requests are necessary, but
saying how this behavior might break existing sites
that assume Chromium's current behavior, and how
this new behavior compares to WebKit and Gecko,
would be helpful.
Also, can you request the
privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability/testing
gates on Chrome Status?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:12 PM Zheda Chen
<zheda...@intel.com> wrote:
Okay I update the process stage in Chrome
Platform Status, and paste the newly-generated
Intent above. Please take a look.
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
--
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/7b8b9b84-2285-4fa9-a80d-c5fc0c1c0c41n%40chromium.org
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/7b8b9b84-2285-4fa9-a80d-c5fc0c1c0c41n%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/8476ed23-905a-4542-8be3-c8d17d5ed3a7%40chromium.org.
