On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 4:33 PM Rick Byers <[email protected]> wrote: > > We discussed this in the API owners meeting right now. While we are > comfortable shipping prior to the PR landing in HTML, it looks like the PRs > are still marked as draft and so not officially requesting review yet, right? > We're worried that may mean people don't realize that their window for > providing feedback may be closing. Noam / Philip, can you set the PRs to > officially be requesting review?
The main reason they are in draft is that they require rebasing on top of the currently non-draft PRs and github doesn't have the concept of "stacked PRs". Since we passed the M152 deadline anyway and reviewers from other browsers are OOO, I suggest I'll allow some time for review once they return. If it's still delayed then, I will post one non-draft PR that includes all of these together and we can re-assess. Does that make sense? > > Rick > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 7:29 PM 'Daniel Clark' via blink-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > This was discussed at part of out-of-order streaming before it was split >> > out to a separate feature >> > https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1134#issuecomment-3357614978 >> > (your own comment :)) >> > I've read that discussion as a go ahead to continue working on the details >> > at WHATWG, but I'm happy to interpret it differently. >> >> > There was not much change to the API since that discussion, perhahps some >> > nits around how this works with trusted types. >> >> >> >> I forgot that we'd looked at these as part of that review. :) I think that >> suffices for TAG then if there haven't been major changes since. >> >> >> >> Thanks for clarifying the state of the spec PRs. In general I think it’s >> reasonable that not all the spec PRs be fully landed if there’s been an >> opportunity for review and all the known issues have been addressed. >> >> A concern I have in this case though is that since some of the PRs are still >> in draft status due to the dependencies on the first round, it’s not clear >> the extent that they’ve really had thorough review from everyone that might >> be interested. >> >> E.g. AnneVK has looked at https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11631, but it >> doesn’t seem like someone from Gecko has, and I don’t see any indication >> that https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12528 has been looked at. And those >> two PRs are the ones that contain the actual API surface that we’d be baking >> into the platform. >> >> >> >> I’d have more confidence about moving forward here if we could at least get >> the first round landed so that the remaining PRs can get rebased and moved >> out of draft status so they can get a more formal round of review. >> >> >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> >> From: Noam Rosenthal <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:28 PM >> To: Daniel Clark <[email protected]> >> Cc: blink-dev <[email protected]>; Philip Jägenstedt >> <[email protected]>; Chromestatus <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Renewed HTML >> insertion&streaming methods >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 8:03 PM 'Dan Clark' via blink-dev >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for working to make this into a consistent API surface! >> > >> > This seems like something the TAG should have a chance to look at, would >> > you mind filing a TAG review? >> >> This was discussed at part of out-of-order streaming before it was split out >> to a separate feature >> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1134#issuecomment-3357614978 >> (your own comment :)) >> I've read that discussion as a go ahead to continue working on the details >> at WHATWG, but I'm happy to interpret it differently. >> >> There was not much change to the API since that discussion, perhahps some >> nits around how this works with trusted types. >> >> > After scanning through https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11669 and the >> > sub-issues I'm still uncertain on where we're at with the state of the >> > spec work. You mentioned that the PRs are stacked per reviewer request and >> > some are still waiting, but does complete spec text exist somewhere for >> > all of these APIs? Or does some still need to be written, pending >> > completion of earlier PRs? For spec PRs still open, what needs to happen >> > for them to land? >> >> There are two HTML PRs waiting to be merged. >> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12583 (trusted types support) >> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12645 (sanitize while parsing) >> >> On top of them there are going to be two PRs. Draft versions of both exist >> in isolation but they would all need to be rebased on top of the stack: >> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12528 (positional methods to replace >> insertAdjacentHTML) >> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11631 (streamHTML*) >> >> >> >> Nothing in particular is preventing these PRs from merging, apart from the >> HTML standard editors' workload (and summer holidays). >> >> As always, unforeseen issues can arise during the review. >> >> Waiting for more upstreaming is one reasonable decision, shipping and >> adjusting later if needed is also a possible one. >> >> I'm laying out the trade offs here and we can all make a decision :) >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/DS0PR00MB2527596D5A57235166CECBB5C5C12%40DS0PR00MB2527.namprd00.prod.outlook.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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJn%3DMYbGU6oZMDKmF0D5itEH8day%2BjzRhzK8bCccZof2284Ozg%40mail.gmail.com.
