Was a bit confused cause the deprecations are printed to console as errors and not as warnings. So I thouht we have to handle that fast in our software and I was not sure when the removal will be done. Is the output as an error the correct way to go? Cause until the milestone is not reached, I can`t upgrade to new syntax. But glad we have no time issues here. Thanks a lot for your fast response.
jar...@chromium.org schrieb am Freitag, 5. April 2024 um 16:52:24 UTC+2: > The new syntax is shipping in the milestone on the chromestatus, and at > that time both syntaxes will work at the same time. To fix the deprecation > message, just migrate to the new syntax. > > I will put down a milestone for the removal when I have everything ready > including an enterprise policy to re-enable the old syntax for a while. > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:38 AM Nils Intfeld <n.in...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> Is it possible to refresh the chrome status sites? >> >> So far I see two status tickets: >> >> The feature of the new Syntax: >> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5586433790443520 >> The removal of the old Syntax: >> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5140610730426368 >> >> There are some things which are misleading for me: >> - The removal ticket has no active development and no estimated shipping >> milestone. >> - The feature ticket says, the estimated shipping milestone is 125, but >> what does that mean? Removal or add of the new syntax or both? >> - I see deprecation warnings in 123 which lets me suggest that there will >> be a removal soon? >> - The chromestatus roadmap does not include that tickets (just an entry >> in 122 for "behind a flag") >> >> Can you help me get those things clear? >> >> >> >> Mike Taylor schrieb am Dienstag, 2. Januar 2024 um 16:04:08 UTC+1: >> >>> If you don't mind - that way it will show up in our review queue. >>> On 12/28/23 4:01 PM, Joey Arhar wrote: >>> >>> > The plan looks good, but I think chromestatus.com can't handle the >>> removal of the old syntax and the addition of the new syntax in a single >>> entry. >>> > Joey, can you create a new entry for shipping the new syntax? >>> >>> Sure: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5586433790443520 >>> Should I start another intent to ship thread for it as well? >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 9:15 PM TAMURA, Kent <tk...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The plan looks good, but I think chromestatus.com can't handle the >>>> removal of the old syntax and the addition of the new syntax in a single >>>> entry. >>>> Joey, can you create a new entry for shipping the new syntax? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 3:54 AM Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LGTM1 to ship. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023, 10:10 AM Joey Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Luke! >>>>>> Now that WebKit is shipping, can I get approval to implement and ship >>>>>> :state(foo) alongside :--foo, then deprecate and remove :--foo? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 12:17 PM Luke <lukewa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fwiw CustomStateSets with the :state() syntax is now enabled by >>>>>>> default on WebKit trunk. >>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/compare/8faf2e8d8d0c...26f4507be15d >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 01:47:10 UTC+1 sligh...@chromium.org >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, would just like to re-emphasise that >>>>>>>> landing a new syntax is less attractive than compatible additions to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> existing one. If there are new problems being solved by the new >>>>>>>> syntax, it >>>>>>>> might be helpful to explain what they are in a short summary >>>>>>>> somewhere, >>>>>>>> with bonus points for why they cannot be addressed with compatible >>>>>>>> additions to the shipped syntax. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, 3:47 PM Chris Wilson <cwi...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll raise this at the next WHATWG SG meeting (tomorrow) as a >>>>>>>>> working mode question, but I would be willing to say that "we will >>>>>>>>> agree to >>>>>>>>> make this change if someone else commits via shipping" would fulfill >>>>>>>>> "we >>>>>>>>> would like to implement this soon". The WHATWG Working Mode doesn't >>>>>>>>> go >>>>>>>>> into great detail about what happens if support is withdrawn prior to >>>>>>>>> implementation - my informal understanding is that such features >>>>>>>>> would end >>>>>>>>> up getting pulled. I think this particular situation ends up >>>>>>>>> effectively >>>>>>>>> putting double the "supports" emphasis on another implementer; >>>>>>>>> merging of >>>>>>>>> the spec PR would be strongly driven by understanding of Apple's (in >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> case) commitment to support. This is personal opinion, of course, >>>>>>>>> and I'll >>>>>>>>> reflect back the discussion with the SG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 2:15 PM Daniel Bratell <brat...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From my API owner hat: I don't mind the change in general but >>>>>>>>>> don't think we should change from something that exists to something >>>>>>>>>> different unless it brings more interoperability, which is why I >>>>>>>>>> think it >>>>>>>>>> is a reasonable decision to not ship until at least another browser >>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The suggestion to avoid further massaging of the spec until >>>>>>>>>> another browser has caught up was a suggestion, and not a MUST, and >>>>>>>>>> was not >>>>>>>>>> intended to prevent anything already in the pipeline from landing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-23 16:46, Chris Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 1:10 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:00 AM Joey Arhar <jar...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > For the purposes of WHATWG's multi-implementer support >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria: I will assume we cannot check the box for "Chromium >>>>>>>>>>>>> supports this >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature" until a different browser has shipped :state() to their >>>>>>>>>>>>> stable >>>>>>>>>>>>> channel. (Let me know if that is incorrect.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Chromium does support the feature, and it should be marked >>>>>>>>>>>>> as such in the WHATWG. (We've shipped it in fact, just with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>> different name for the moment.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I'm worried that not merging the spec would be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing signal to Apple and then they might never implement >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> like to see the HTML spec get merged as :state(). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get confirmation from this from the API Owners as a >>>>>>>>>>> whole before moving forward. This is the first time that Chromium, >>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>> indeed any implementer, has said "we will not ship the contents of >>>>>>>>>>> this PR" >>>>>>>>>>> (until some future condition, outside your control, comes to pass). >>>>>>>>>>> But, >>>>>>>>>>> supports merging the PR. Indeed, this goes against the "should" in >>>>>>>>>>> the WHATWG >>>>>>>>>>> working mode <https://whatwg.org/working-mode#additions> for >>>>>>>>>>> feature additions; "we would be willing to implement this after >>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>> implementer ships to stable" is very different from "we would like >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> implement this soon". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chromium support already meets the "must" part of the definition >>>>>>>>>> you linked to. It also meets the "should" part as written. "We would >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> to implement this soon" is true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So I'd appreciate it if the API Owners could, in their next >>>>>>>>>>> discussion of this topic, resolve whether or not Chromium supports >>>>>>>>>>> :state() >>>>>>>>>>> being added to the HTML Standard, even before any other engine >>>>>>>>>>> ships it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The API owners are not in charge of the kind of decision. My API >>>>>>>>>> owner hat off, I (and Mason) have provided support as owners of the >>>>>>>>>> relevant part of Chromium. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:55 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:48 PM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Chris and the API Owners for having this discussion! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sympathetic to this being a hard problem with the strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a bad precedent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 3:00 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:59 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bikeshed", that is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With my HTML spec editor hat on, I have a clarifying point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Leave the spec as-is": right now there are unmerged CSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/8213> and HTML >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467> spec PRs, plus a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WICG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec <https://wicg.github.io/custom-state-pseudo-class/>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it's not clear exactly which spec you're referring to, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice is for Chromium engineers to not invest effort in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing any of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these three work items for bikeshed considerations. (Let me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.) Of course, other community members can continue to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec if they wish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those PRs should be finished and landed. My/our comment was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only about bikeshedding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the purposes of WHATWG's multi-implementer support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria: I will assume we cannot check the box for "Chromium >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supports this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature" until a different browser has shipped :state() to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> channel. (Let me know if that is incorrect.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium does support the feature, and it should be marked as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such in the WHATWG. (We've shipped it in fact, just with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different name for the moment.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sligh...@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 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/2be8b2de-43d2-4013-9c61-8353e82668edn%40chromium.org.
