On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 5:43 PM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Very exciting to see progress on this longstanding problem! > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 3:35 AM Kyra Seevers <kyraseev...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >> kyraseev...@chromium.org, miketa...@chromium.org, a...@google.com >> >> Explainer >> >> >> https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Partitioning-visited-links-history >> >> Specification >> >> https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#visited-privacy >> > > As you note below, this isn't a real specification of the behavior you're > proposing to ship. Instead, it contains that behavior in a non-normative > appendix. > > It's therefore unclear to what extent the behavior here represents > cross-browser consensus, and what types of interop and compat risks this is > leaving us up to. > > Can you say more about what's missing from getting a cross-browser > agreed-upon algorithm specified by the CSSWG? Are there other candidate > algorithms that other browsers are championing, which we might be in > conflict with? > This has been discussed with the working group several times, starting from the 2023 TPAC meeting, so the WG is well aware of the proposal. More recently, the WG resolved to upgrade the language in Selectors to *require* being privacy-preserving, and add our algorithm as an appendix for now. As the behavior is still untested in stable, the WG didn't want to adopt it precisely yet. After we've had it on for a while and confirmed that it still suits users' needs, we plan to bring it back to the WG for more official adoption. Private discussion with other vendors suggests that they expect to adopt it (or something very close to it) anyway as long as we stick with it, since we're going to at some point remove the :visited styling restrictions (once we're confident about this approach), and that's likely to become a cross-browser compat issue afterwards. So, the only blocker to making this official is that the WG (and us, tbh) want to see it working in practice first. There's no counter-proposal besides just continuing with the current semi-documented styling restrictions. Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >> ? >> >> No >> >> This feature is not tested by automated Web Platform Tests because the >> :visited selector, in its current state, cannot be queried via JavaScript ( >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Privacy_and_the_:visited_selector). >> As a result, we can only test :visited-ness via a manual test >> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6262650/8> >> which relies on users visually confirming the correct links are :visited, >> or unit and integration tests internal to Chrome. >> > > Couldn't this be tested with reftests > <https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/reftests.html>? > Eh, probably, but possibly with some flakiness. Emilio voiced concern about assuming a synchronous styling of :visited links (in < https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11151#issuecomment-2607888849>). But if we're okay with a delay that will *probably* work, reftests are likely possible. I expect the main issue is going to be having cross-domain tests. We probably already have some framework for serving some files from a different domain in WPT, yeah? I've never had to deal with that issue before. ~TJ -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAWBYDBVnEddcjs25NXT708bGpZVZCYJViSx4U4QSC78PJK46g%40mail.gmail.com.
