Hi Emlio,
Thanks for your patience with these fixes and taking the time to outline
your concerns. Hope things are better now, and as always, if not just say
so. :)
Chris
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:39 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez
wrote:
> A quick status update here:
>
> I landed some heuristics to
A quick status update here:
I landed some heuristics to disable scroll anchoring in pathological
cases in Firefox a long while ago. This stopped virtually all compat
issues, though it's obviously not great.
Chris and other Chromium folks have been doing work to fix Chromium
issues that were
HI Emilio,
I'll follow up on crbug.com/920289. Let's discuss there.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:03 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 10/18/19 7:19 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another quick update: Emilio, Navid, Nick, Stefan and I met today and
> > discussed which
Hi all,
10/18/19 7:19 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote:
Hi,
Another quick update: Emilio, Navid, Nick, Stefan and I met today and
discussed which issues are important to fix and why. We now have a list of
spec issues, and WPT tests to fix that are Chromium bugs, that should
substantially improve
Hi,
Another quick update: Emilio, Navid, Nick, Stefan and I met today and
discussed which issues are important to fix and why. We now have a list of
spec issues, and WPT tests to fix that are Chromium bugs, that should
substantially improve interop. Nick and Stefan will take on the work to fix
Sorry for the delay.
We agree that scroll anchoring has unrealized potential to be valuable for
the web at large, and to make that happen we should be investing a lot more
working with y'all (and if we can't succeed, probably removing it from
chromium). Concretely +Chris Harrelson who leads
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 2:24 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez
wrote:
> pretty significant behavior differences were only
> caught later by me and people finding compat issues in the wild, like
> [3]. I was sad that the spec reflected absolutely nothing like what
> Blink implements. For this issue in
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:16 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez
wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On 9/27/19 4:03 PM, Steve Kobes wrote:
> > Hi Emilio,
> >
> > My recollection is that scroll anchoring was, in fact, a mess. I do not
> > personally have any opinion about whether scroll anchoring should be
> > removed
Hi Emilio,
My recollection is that scroll anchoring was, in fact, a mess. I do not
personally have any opinion about whether scroll anchoring should be
removed from Gecko.
We (Chrome) decided to accept some compat issues for the sake of launching
the feature. This was a judgment call and could
Hi Rick,
On 9/28/19 10:07 PM, Rick Byers wrote:
Can you give us a week or so to chat about this within the Chrome team
and get back to you?
Any updates here?
Thanks.
--
Mike Taylor
Web Compat, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
On 9/29/19 5:07 AM, Rick Byers wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:16 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez
mailto:emi...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
Hi Steve,
On 9/27/19 4:03 PM, Steve Kobes wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> My recollection is that scroll anchoring was, in fact, a mess. I
do not
On 29/09/19 1:54 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
How useful is scroll anchoring outside of the two cases mentioned in
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scroll-anchoring/#intro i.e. images loading and ad
iframes being inserted? Would it be feasible to make scroll anchoring a much
less general
On Sunday 2019-09-29 10:54 +1000, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> How useful is scroll anchoring outside of the two cases mentioned in
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scroll-anchoring/#intro i.e. images loading and
> ad iframes being inserted? Would it be feasible to make scroll anchoring a
> much
How useful is scroll anchoring outside of the two cases mentioned in
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scroll-anchoring/#intro i.e. images loading and ad
iframes being inserted? Would it be feasible to make scroll anchoring a much
less general mechanism, and to scope it down to handling these
On 27/09/2019 23:19, Botond Ballo wrote:
Emilio, thanks for all your work on this!
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:23 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote:
Does anyone have strong opinions against removing scroll anchoring from
Gecko, based on the above?
My 2c: it would be unfortunate to give up on
Emilio, thanks for all your work on this!
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:23 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote:
> Does anyone have strong opinions against removing scroll anchoring from
> Gecko, based on the above?
My 2c: it would be unfortunate to give up on scroll anchoring as a
feature altogether.
On Friday 2019-09-27 14:23 +0200, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote:
> Does anyone have strong opinions against removing scroll anchoring from
> Gecko, based on the above?
It seems pretty sad, since I think it's a very useful feature for a
large class of pages -- particularly pages that are more
On 9/27/19 3:30 PM, twisniew...@mozilla.com wrote:
I suspect that if we can give our compat addon an easy way to specify sites
which need an opt-out, that might ease the pain. Likewise, as obnoxious as the
thought is, perhaps giving sites a standard way to opt out of anchoring could
be a
My gut tells me that there would be fallout with users. I've been personally
told by more than one user that they are unwilling to use browsers without it,
as they feel like user-unfriendly relics.
As such I would recommend not removing it unless Blink does. I suspect that if
we can handle the
Hi,
I was the one who originally implemented scroll anchoring in Firefox and just
want to say that I agree with Emilio here.
Scroll anchoring is a cool feature and would be great to have, but these
difficulties that Emilio has mentioned have been here since day-1.
It would be great to find a
And, to be clear, we _can_ fix these compat issues, some way or another.
One thought is to limit the amount of scroll adjustments without user
scrolling or stuff like that, which would prevent the "you get stuck on
the page".
Making anchoring opt-in rather than opt-out is another option, but
21 matches
Mail list logo
