On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, 3:24 PM Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Yes absolutely! This is along the lines of what I had in mind. > > 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/CAGf_Md0LZ25DRpG7CtJBfXKhTfG-0tHKkb-1GFwh3CtrOoCP8g%40mail.gmail.com.
