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 interop. Nick and Stefan will take on the work to fix
them, with the review and feedback support of Emilio.
So, today another scroll-anchoring bug crossed my radar, and this one
I'm not sure at all how to fix it, because there's no obvious answer
here as far as I can tell.
My diagnosis (for one of the pages, the one I could repro and reduce) is
in here[1], but basically my current explanation is that the page should
be broken per spec, and that when it works it's hitting a bug in both
Chromium[2] which we have an equivalent of but are just not hitting
because in Firefox changing `overflow` does more/different layout work
than in Chrome.
The test-case may as well work if we change our scroll event or timer
scheduling (see there), but that is obviously pretty flaky.
I honestly don't have many better ideas for more fancy heursitics about
how to unbreak that kind of site. From the point of view of the
anchoring code, the page is just toggling height somewhere above the
anchor, which is the case where scroll anchoring _should_ work, usually.
I can, of course (and may as a short-term band-aid, not sure yet) add
`overflow` to the magic list of properties like `position` that suppress
scroll anchoring everywhere in the scroller, but that'd be just kicking
the can down the road and waiting for the next difference in layout
performance optimizations between Blink and Gecko to hit us.
I think (about to go on PTO for the next of the week) I'll add telemetry
for pages that have scroll event listeners, and see if disabling scroll
anchoring on a node when there are scroll event listeners attached to it
is something reasonable (plus adding an explicit opt-in of course).
I'm not terribly hopeful that the percentage of such documents is going
to be terribly big, to be honest, but providing an opt-in and doing
outreach may be a reasonable alternative.
Another idea would be to restrict the number of consecutive scrolls made
by scroll anchoring to a given number at most. That would made the
experience in such broken websites somewhat less annoying, but it'll
also show flickering until that happens, which would make the browser
still look broken :/.
Thoughts / ideas I may not have thought of/be aware of?
Thanks,
-- Emilio
[1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592094#c15
[2]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=920289
Thanks all,
Chris
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:13 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote:
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 rendering for Chrome (and
likely someone else from his team), as well as +Nick Burris from the Chrome
input team will start digging in ASAP. In addition to just the normal
high-bandwidth engineer-to-engineer collaboration between chromium and
gecko I propose the following high-level goals for our work:
- Ensure that there are no known deviations in behavior between
chromium and the spec (one way or the other).
- Ensure all the (non-ua-specific) site compat constraints folks are
hitting are captured in web-platform-tests. I.e. if Gecko passes the tests
and serves a chromium UA string it should work as well as in Chrome (modulo
other unrelated UA compat issues of course).
- Look for any reasonable opportunity to help deal with UA-specific
compat issues (i.e. those that show up on sites that are explicitly looking
for a Gecko UA string or other engine-specific feature). This may include
making changes in the spec / chromium implementation. This is probably the
toughest one, but I'm optimistic that if we nail the first two, we can find
some reasonable tradeoff for the hard parts that are left here. Philip (our
overall interop lead) has volunteered to help out here as well.
Does that sound about right? Any suggestions on the best forum for tight
engineering collaboration? GitHub good enough, or maybe get on an IRC /
slack channel together somewhere?
Rick
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:11 PM Mike Taylor <mi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
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
--
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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-DPW4tXA_R-c0WAj76Qtj4TYdjwHai3odyNdWYVfJhZA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-DPW4tXA_R-c0WAj76Qtj4TYdjwHai3odyNdWYVfJhZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platf...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
