If a focusreset event would help most users who depend on the old behavior migrate, then I think the ideal staging would be to ship that new event and see someone successfully migrate to it, and then do thedeprecation+removal. If it's possible to gain confidence that migration is smooth before it reaches stable that would be a fine way to compress the timeline. The only staging I'd discourage (and you didn't suggest) is to deprecate before the new thing is even implemented.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:04 PM Noam Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, 2:12 PM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Noam, >> >> Just for clarity, you still consider this intent on pause, right? But you >> might do an Intent to Ship which includes this in the plans? >> >>> > > Yes, sorry for the ambiguity. > It's still on pause. I am sharing my intention to revive this soon under > those conditions, and welcoming feedback! > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 11:10 AM Noam Rosenthal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Coming back to this after 2 years and multiple bugs related to firing >>> events while removing nodes :) >>> >>> I think this is still worth pursuing, alongside deprecating >>> pagehide/visibilitychange event on iframe removal. >>> >>> I checked the landscape of libraries that rely on this, and most/all of >>> them have an ugly workaround for Gecko/Webkit, to check if the focus >>> element was removed with a MutationObserver. >>> The WHATWG community was happy with adding a "focusreset" event (or some >>> such) for these cases so that people can avoid this workaround. >>> >>> I believe that standardizing/shipping that event + deprecating >>> blur+focusout+change on removal is the right next steps, first behind a >>> flag to check for webcompat, and probably with an enterprise policy for a >>> while. >>> Discussion and examples are here: >>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/12842 >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 4:20:53 PM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: >>> >>>> Update on this: we're still interested in the next step but it's in the >>>> back burner until mutation event deprecation is complete, to avoid related >>>> noise. >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 12:52:23 PM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Aaron Leventhal <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A good start would be Scott O'Hara from Microsoft. He would know >>>>>> others to loop in. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, will reach out. We see this deprecation as a long-haul thing, >>>>> and sent this I2D to start the conversation. Thanks for the pointers! >>>>> >>>> -- >>> 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/8edbdfe4-73e6-4818-9319-030768fdec7an%40chromium.org >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/8edbdfe4-73e6-4818-9319-030768fdec7an%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- 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/CAARdPYc4C7WTD4dk9gGAN9PPfvotztNwEgM0Gygmrf_Q%3DSK1AQ%40mail.gmail.com.
