I'm also super excited about this. Has been a long time coming. Thank you for making it happen, Kyra!
On compat, can we allay the concerns here with a fractional rollout (e.g., ~10% for a couple of releases) and a checkin at some point(s) before we go to 100%? Best, Alex On Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 3:44:15 AM UTC-8 Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 6:36:45 PM UTC+1 jacka...@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 5:43 PM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > Very exciting to see progress on this longstanding problem! > > > +1000000 > > > > 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. > > > Could the relevant spec language live in a PR? Having such language would > make it easier to evaluate the gap between the current CSS spec and the > ability to specify this behavior in an interoperable way. > > > 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/822fde84-1372-455a-aaa0-40cae6b30547n%40chromium.org.
