Yes, the Fenced Frames use counter <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/webfeature/timeline/popularity/284> shows usage on approximately 0.07% of page loads.
Note that this counter tracks the instantiation of the <fencedframe> element rather than successful navigation. Since the default URL mode (via new FencedFrameConfig(url)) has always been disabled by default on Stable, and the navigation APIs (runAdAuction and selectURL) are already stubbed and being removed (a precondition to FF's stubbing and removal), these elements can no longer navigate (internal UMA metrics confirms that). Regarding the concern about breaking feature detection: Websites cannot rely solely on the existence of window.HTMLFencedFrameElement to assume Fenced Frame navigations will succeed. For example, if a user disables the Privacy Sandbox via Chrome settings, the HTMLFencedFrameElement interface remains defined on the window, but the APIs to obtain a navigation config (runAdAuction, selectURL) return null or reject. Websites already must handle this case gracefully. Staged removal via stubs and Finch: If we remove the element completely immediately, it will resolve to HTMLUnknownElement. This causes it to lose its default 300x150 sizing, collapsing to 0x0 unless explicitly sized in CSS. Staging this transition—keeping it as a stub in M154 and rolling out the element removal via Finch in M155—allows a gradual transition, rather than risking sudden layout regressions for 100% of Stable users at once. Also a correction on the original intent mentioning stubbing the `fenced-frame-element.config.setSharedStorageContext()` API but that would not be needed since shared storage removal will remove that (tracking bug <https://issues.chromium.org/545349630>). Please let me know if this answers the question. On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 11:43 AM Vladimir Levin <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have use counter numbers by any chance? > I also have some concern about the plan here. Removing the feature but > keeping the idl as stubs for a release sounds like it would break feature > detection. Specifically, one could detect that these APIs exist but they do > nothing. Can you comment on that? I'd almost want to see a faster removal > after a deprecation period, assuming use counters are low enough. > > Thanks! > Vlad > > On Tuesday, August 11, 2026 at 4:20:44 PM UTC-4 Shivani Sharma wrote: > >> *[Adding summary again with formatting since chromestatus formatting >> didn't work]* >> >> *Summary* >> Fenced frames are nested frames that embed content onto a page without >> the ability to share data between the fenced frame and its embedder. >> >> window.fence APIs include Fenced frames Ads reporting (FFAR) JS APIs that >> were created for privacy-safe ads reporting from FFs created using >> Protected Audience and SelectURL and getNestedConfigs() to support PA >> component ads. >> >> This intent is for removing both of these. Fenced frames element removal >> will be two step as detailed below. >> With the removal (or stub API replacement) of PA and selectURL, FFs can >> no longer be navigated and thus it is safe to remove them. >> >> Fenced frames are only able to be navigated using the urn:uuid in a >> FencedFrameConfig[1], which can only be created using the return values >> from runAdAuction and selectURL. These APIs are being deprecated and >> removed in M152 as per the following Intent threads: Protected Audience[2], >> Shared Storage[3]. >> >> Plan: Given that the fenced frames element can no longer be navigated, we >> propose removing the element from the code in the following phases: >> 1. M154: Keep the fenced frame element and its associated IDL >> dependencies as stubs. This is to ensure no JS call throws, e.g.calling >> fenced-frame-element.config.setSharedStorageContext(). >> 2. M154: In the same milestone we will also remove the window.fence APIs >> completely. Since there is no FF document navigation, these APIs cannot be >> invoked anymore, so it will be a no-op. >> 3. M155 Canary/Beta: Begin a controlled rollout of the stub FF HTML >> element removal via a field trial. Note that removing the element will >> resolve it to HTMLUnknownElement. >> At this point we are requesting approvals for all of the above steps. >> 4. M155 Stable: Assuming there are no regressions or breakage after >> reaching 1% stable, we will request additional approval for full removal of >> the FF element. >> >> [1] >> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/html/fenced_frame/fenced_frame_config.idl >> >> [2] >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/k_nubsMb97g/m/awPD4IGLBAAJ >> >> [3] >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/uh5Ke6qyegc/m/WFTFnhyJBAAJ >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 4:17 PM Chromestatus < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> *Contact emails* >>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>> >>> *Explainer* >>> https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/blob/master/explainer/README.md >>> >>> *Specification* >>> https://wicg.github.io/fenced-frame >>> >>> *Summary* >>> Fenced frames are nested frames that embed content onto a page without >>> the ability to share data between the fenced frame and its embedder. >>> window.fence APIs include Fenced frames Ads reporting (FFAR) JS APIs that >>> were created for privacy-safe ads reporting from FFs created using >>> Protected Audience and SelectURL and getNestedConfigs() to support PA >>> component ads. This intent is for removing both of these. Fenced frames >>> element removal will be two step as detailed below. With the removal (or >>> stub API replacement) of PA and selectURL, FFs can no longer be navigated >>> and thus it is safe to remove them. Fenced frames are only able to be >>> navigated using the urn:uuid in a FencedFrameConfig[1], which can only be >>> created using the return values from runAdAuction and selectURL. These APIs >>> are being deprecated and removed in M152 as per the following Intent >>> threads: Protected Audience[2], Shared Storage[3]. Plan: Given that the >>> fenced frames element can no longer be navigated, we propose removing the >>> element from the code in the following phases: 1. M154: Keep the fenced >>> frame element and its associated IDL dependencies as stubs. This is to >>> ensure no JS call throws, e.g.calling >>> fenced-frame-element.config.setSharedStorageContext(). 2. M154: In the same >>> milestone we will also remove the window.fence APIs completely. Since there >>> is no FF document navigation, these APIs cannot be invoked anymore, so it >>> will be a no-op. 3. M155 Canary/Beta: Begin a controlled rollout of the >>> stub FF HTML element removal via a field trial. Note that removing the >>> element will resolve it to HTMLUnknownElement. At this point we are >>> requesting approvals for all of the above steps. 4. M155 Stable: Assuming >>> there are no regressions or breakage after reaching 1% stable, we will >>> request additional approval for full removal of the FF element. [1] >>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/html/fenced_frame/fenced_frame_config.idl >>> [2] >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/k_nubsMb97g/m/awPD4IGLBAAJ >>> [3] >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/uh5Ke6qyegc/m/WFTFnhyJBAAJ >>> >>> *Blink component* >>> Blink>FencedFrames >>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EFencedFrames%22> >>> >>> *Web Feature ID* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *Motivation* >>> As described in the summary section, since fenced frames are no longer >>> able to be navigated to a document, once PA and selectURL are removed, we >>> should also remove FFs API for code health and to remove unused APIs from >>> the web platform. >>> >>> *Initial public proposal* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *TAG review* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *TAG review status* >>> Not applicable >>> >>> *Goals for experimentation* >>> None >>> >>> *Risks* >>> >>> >>> *Interoperability and Compatibility* >>> Since fenced frames were not implemented by other browser vendors, there >>> is no interoperability risk. Removing fenced frames is backward compatible >>> once PA and selectURL have been removed since FFs can then no longer be >>> navigated to a document. But there may be minor inconsistencies b/w FF >>> element and HTMLUnknownElement, e.g. their default size so we plan to keep >>> FF element as a stub and remove the stub via field trial. >>> >>> *Gecko*: No signal >>> >>> *WebKit*: No signal >>> >>> *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? >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> >>> *Debuggability* >>> We will add an issue to dev tools when FF is converted to a stub >>> element, whenever a FF element is created, that they will be removed >>> shortly. >>> >>> *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 >>> >>> >>> *Flag name on about://flags* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *Finch feature name* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *Non-finch justification* >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *Rollout plan* >>> Will ship enabled for all users >>> >>> *Requires code in //chrome?* >>> False >>> >>> *Tracking bug* >>> https://issues.chromium.org/538634423 >>> >>> *Estimated milestones* >>> Shipping on desktop 154 >>> Shipping on Android 154 >>> Shipping on WebView 154 >>> >>> *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). >>> *No information provided* >>> >>> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status* >>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6366274495053824?gate=5364408546099200 >>> >>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>> <https://chromestatus.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/CADAcp092CMY_mrJ%3DKJ4mRKERhuCP9O%2B61UThk8BiibgCT0aETA%40mail.gmail.com.
