LGTM3 I'm torn about what standard to hold ourselves to when another vendor has already shipped an API without a spec. I think a basic explainer and a reasonable set of web platform tests is a good minimum bar though to ensure interop with the already shipped API. So, thanks for taking that on.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:15 AM Becca Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Chris and Rick for the LGTMs. We still need one more API owner > to approve. > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:02 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> LGTM3 >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:21 PM Rick Byers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > [Dropping mozilla-dev-tech-layout since it's a subscribers-only list] >> > >> > That explainer looks great to me, thanks! I added a link to the >> chromestatus >> > entry <https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5710044637167616>. >> > >> > It's sad that we still don't really have a proper spec for the meta >> > viewport tag, just the apparently stalled device adaptation spec >> > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-device-adapt/>. But at least between that >> > and the round display draft >> > <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-round-display/#viewport-fit-descriptor> >> there's >> > kinda an existing definition for the viewport-fit token. I guess there's >> > not really any reasonable way to write a web-platform-test for the >> > viewport-fit behavior. We'd have to add a WebDriver command to simulate >> a >> > display cut-out <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/11718 >> >, >> > and also come up with some mitigation >> > <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/11717> for the fact >> > that mobile viewports are really an Android-only behavior in Chrome at >> the >> > moment. That's a fair amount of work, and IMHO not worth blocking this >> > feature on. >> > >> > LGTM2 >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:48 PM Becca Hughes <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Here is an explainer for the feature: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lbZi18_5cMlLOphpFqTbuI4B0YGykQvvtRbw6j67UyE/edit >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Becca >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:35 AM, 'Alex Russell' via >> >> mozilla.dev.tech.layout <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hey all, >> >>> >> >>> API OWNERS met this morning and while we're not exercised about the >> lack >> >>> of >> >>> spec text, the linked design docs don't fill the role of an Explainer: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cJs7GkdQolqOHns9k6v1UjCUb_LqTFVjZM-kc3TbNGI/edit?usp=sharing >> >>> >> >>> That is, it isn't clear what problems this is solving, why these >> >>> (relatively large) proposals are the correct way to solve them, or >> what >> >>> the >> >>> considered alternatives are. Rubber-stamping the >> >>> launched-without-consultation (or even Origin Trial) additions of >> >>> another >> >>> vendor without that sort of deliberation is very much a non-goals, so >> if >> >>> there are docs that could stand in for an Explainer here, that would >> >>> help >> >>> unblock my LGTM. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:24:48 AM UTC-7, Becca Hughes wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, 23:40 Yoav Weiss, <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:32 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected] >> >>> <javascript:>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:32 AM Becca Hughes < >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >> <javascript:>> >> >>> >> > wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> We have been looking into the test failures and believe we have >> >>> found >> >>> >> the >> >>> >> >> cause. It looks like env() is switched off on some iOS devices. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> The feature can be switched on by going to Settings > Safari > >> >>> >> Advanced > >> >>> >> >> Experimental Features > Constant Properties. With the feature >> >>> enabled >> >>> >> all >> >>> >> >> the WPT tests pass. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > So, the feature is shipped in some iOS devices but not others? Do >> >>> we >> >>> >> know >> >>> >> > if it's a matter of Safari version? Or some other criteria? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > The original launch announcement from Apple cites that you need at >> >>> least >> >>> > iOS 11.2 beta. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> Or did they ship this only on some hardware devices but not others? >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > I am not sure about the exact details but at least in their repo it >> is >> >>> on >> >>> > by default: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/01ff8c715bb788e0d721948c7d7acd7d5cfa06c3/Source/WebKit/Shared/WebPreferences.yaml#L1058 >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Becca Hughes < >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >> <javascript:>> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hi Rick, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I tested this on an iPhone 6 running iOS 11.4, as well as a Mac >> >>> >> (Safari >> >>> >> >>> 11.1.1) and iPhone Simulator running iOS 11.4 on both the >> iPhone >> >>> 8 and >> >>> >> >>> iPhone X and for me all the tests are passing. The Safari >> version >> >>> is >> >>> >> >>> AppleWebKit/605.1.15 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On your iPhone if you type in "show user agent" to Google in >> >>> Safari it >> >>> >> >>> should show you what version of Safari you are running. I >> wonder >> >>> if >> >>> >> for >> >>> >> >>> some reason your iPhone is running an older build of Safari. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>> Becca >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Rick Byers < >> [email protected] >> >>> >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Becca, thank you for getting all the environment variables >> >>> you're >> >>> >> >>> > supporting added to some draft spec, and tentative >> >>> >> web-platform-tests >> >>> >> >>> > landed - I agree with the earlier discussions that this is a >> >>> >> >>> pre-requisite >> >>> >> >>> > to shipping (even when Safari has sadly shipped without >> having >> >>> >> >>> invested in >> >>> >> >>> > such engineering discipline). >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > Ideally we'd have the rest of the env() behavior that we're >> >>> shipping >> >>> >> >>> fully >> >>> >> >>> > specified somewhere (even if not yet agreed upon), but given >> >>> that >> >>> >> >>> Safari >> >>> >> >>> > has already shipped and developers are starting to depend on >> >>> it, I'm >> >>> >> >>> pretty >> >>> >> >>> > confident that either the spec will end up following what's >> >>> already >> >>> >> >>> been >> >>> >> >>> > shipped in Safari, or WebKit will agree on breaking changes >> we >> >>> feel >> >>> >> we >> >>> >> >>> can >> >>> >> >>> > make. So I'm not convinced we'd get any real-world >> >>> interoperability >> >>> >> >>> value >> >>> >> >>> > by blocking our ship further on getting the additional >> details >> >>> added >> >>> >> >>> to the >> >>> >> >>> > spec, instead of just continuing to incubate and iterate. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > However it is important to ensure we are actually shipping >> >>> something >> >>> >> >>> > that's interoperable with Safari including the edge cases. I >> >>> just >> >>> >> ran >> >>> >> >>> all >> >>> >> >>> > the tests at https://w3c-test.org/css/css-env on an iPhone >> >>> (iOS >> >>> >> 11.4) >> >>> >> >>> and >> >>> >> >>> > see that most of them are failing (eg. every "syntax" test >> >>> fails >> >>> >> with >> >>> >> >>> > "assert_equals expected "rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)" but got "rgb(0, >> 128, >> >>> >> 0)"). >> >>> >> >>> > They're passing on a Mac (Safari 11.0.3) and when I use an >> >>> iPhone X >> >>> >> on >> >>> >> >>> > browserstack.com (iOS 11, can't tell which point release), >> so I >> >>> >> >>> suspect >> >>> >> >>> > one of Mobile safari's non-standard quirks (maybe something >> >>> about >> >>> >> >>> viewport >> >>> >> >>> > behavior?), but I didn't try to debug them. Do you have >> access >> >>> to an >> >>> >> >>> iPhone >> >>> >> >>> > you can try debugging with, just to double-check that we >> really >> >>> are >> >>> >> >>> > shipping something that behaves the same on Chrome Android as >> >>> Safari >> >>> >> >>> iOS? >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > Rick >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:57 AM Becca Hughes < >> >>> >> >>> [email protected] <javascript:>> >> >>> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> The spec pull request to define the safe area variables has >> >>> been >> >>> >> >>> merged >> >>> >> >>> >> and is now part of the spec >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-env-1/#safe-area-insets>. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> (@David - thanks again for reviewing the PR) >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:55 PM, L. David Baron < >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >> <javascript:>> >> >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Monday 2018-06-25 13:18 -0700, Becca Hughes wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Rune Lillesveen < >> >>> >> >>> >>> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> The CSSWG resolved on four values and edits to be >> made >> >>> to >> >>> >> CSS >> >>> >> >>> >>> Variables >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> Level 2[1]. Do we have a resolution overriding that >> to >> >>> put >> >>> >> it >> >>> >> >>> in a >> >>> >> >>> >>> separate >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> spec? >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> I would not be comfortable shipping this without >> having >> >>> >> these >> >>> >> >>> four >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> values put in a spec with a description of what they >> >>> are. >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> I am not sure about the resolution, I will let @Tab >> >>> answer >> >>> >> that >> >>> >> >>> one. >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> I added a pull request to add them to the spec: >> >>> >> >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2807 >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > It looks like Tab will be OOO for the next couple of >> weeks, >> >>> but >> >>> >> >>> this >> >>> >> >>> >>> > shouldn't block launch. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I think the underlying objection here is that we don't want >> >>> to get >> >>> >> >>> >>> in a situation where multiple implementations are shipping >> a >> >>> >> feature >> >>> >> >>> >>> that doesn't have a specification. I don't think that >> >>> something >> >>> >> >>> >>> being in Tab's backlog of specification editing in an >> >>> acceptable >> >>> >> >>> >>> resolution to that, given the size of his backlog. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I also don't want to be in a situation where Tab is the >> single >> >>> >> >>> >>> person gating new features; other people should be able to >> >>> edit >> >>> >> CSS >> >>> >> >>> >>> specifications, particularly when given appropriate >> mentoring >> >>> and >> >>> >> >>> >>> advice. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> So I'd be substantially happier here if there were a >> >>> specification >> >>> >> >>> >>> before a second implementation shipped, but I also think >> >>> getting >> >>> >> >>> >>> that specification done shouldn't require any one >> particular >> >>> >> person >> >>> >> >>> >>> to be involved. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> -David >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> >>> 𝄞 L. David Baron >> >>> http://dbaron.org/ >> >>> >> 𝄂 >> >>> >> >>> >>> 𝄢 Mozilla >> >>> https://www.mozilla.org/ >> >>> >> 𝄂 >> >>> >> >>> >>> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know >> >>> >> >>> >>> What I was walling in or walling out, >> >>> >> >>> >>> And to whom I was like to give offense. >> >>> >> >>> >>> - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> >>> Google >> >>> >> >>> Groups >> >>> >> >>> >> "blink-dev" group. >> >>> >> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/ >> >>> >> >>> >> >> chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELTCuBL83Dd6kOnEfNQGUpdO >> >>> >> >>> >> JV7VnVeV-7Bo-78oraG6A%40mail.gmail.com >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> < >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELTCuBL83Dd6kOnEfNQGUpdOJV7VnVeV-7Bo-78oraG6A%40mail.gmail.com?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] <javascript:>. >> >>> >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELjgh5773%3DJpR7VdqqfUFqCpfQ7JzjN_ENdJhjafEABRA%40mail.gmail.com >> >>> >> >> < >> >>> >> >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsELjgh5773%3DJpR7VdqqfUFqCpfQ7JzjN_ENdJhjafEABRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> . >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> >> "blink-dev" group. >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsE%2BkJugFcOhaMxtBThZezroAPZTY1QaMSXW0oHDnu105Yg%40mail.gmail.com >> >> < >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsE%2BkJugFcOhaMxtBThZezroAPZTY1QaMSXW0oHDnu105Yg%40mail.gmail.com?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 on the web visit >> > >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-KpYMW6Sr_a3JPZPjGWmisFM0%3D%2BP6w3nofH9MpEcQ7KQ%40mail.gmail.com >> > < >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-KpYMW6Sr_a3JPZPjGWmisFM0%3D%2BP6w3nofH9MpEcQ7KQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> > >> > . >> > >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsEKAUsa6CjXcp4vsWOmBa4yGVWZEOVTPkdf3bgrjdNYENQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFeLsEKAUsa6CjXcp4vsWOmBa4yGVWZEOVTPkdf3bgrjdNYENQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
