Awesome, thanks so much for the quick investigation! That indeed sounds pretty low risk to me. LGTM1.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:36 PM Noam Rosenthal <nrosent...@chromium.org> wrote: > I've run a rough HTTP archive query on it, testing all HTTP responses last > month (666 million): > getComputedStyle with an argument that doesn't begin with "::" is called > in 0.45% of pages, out of which 55% is ":before", 28% is after, and the > vast majority of the rest are invalid pseudo-element names (e.g. "height" > or "display"). > There were extremely rare cases that would be affected: > getComputedStyle(element, ":placeholder") or getComputedStyle(element, > ":marker"), about 0.00001% of requests (34 out of 666 million). > I'm running a more refined version of the query but I doubt I'll get > significantly different results. > > So I'd perhaps classify backwards compatibility as low-risk? > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:32 AM Noam Rosenthal <nrosent...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:57 AM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Dan for raising the compat concerns here. It seems like a mistake >>> that the original Intent says "None" for that, >>> >> Good point, I updated it. >> >> >> >>> and I think we need to get that section of the Chrome Status entry >>> fleshed out before considering approvals here. >>> >> >>> What I'm hearing so far is that we think the compat risks might be small >>> because Gecko and WebKit are already using strict parsing. That's >>> something, but can we do better? For example: >>> >>> - Is there any upper bound on the potential number of broken page >>> views? Ideally we'd have a use counter for how many times the lenient >>> parsing is triggered, but for an upper bound even just a use counter for >>> how many times these arguments are supplied to getComputedStyle()/new >>> KeyframeEffect() would help. >>> - Can we do an HTTP archive analysis of some sort? >>> >>> Will do both and come back with results. >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 5:55 PM Noam Rosenthal <nrosent...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 11:56 PM 'Dan Clark' via blink-dev < >>>> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am I correct in understanding that Gecko already mostly matches the >>>>> behavior in the spec? I see that Firefox also fails most of the WPTs at >>>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/cssom/getComputedStyle-pseudo-with-argument.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned, >>>>> but I guess that's because they haven't shipped ::highlight() pseudos. >>>> >>>> Correct, it's because of ::highlight. It passes most of the tests in >>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/cssom/getComputedStyle-pseudo.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>>> How are you thinking about the compatibility risk? If we're making the >>>>> parsing stricter in certain ways, presumably sites depending on that >>>>> behavior could break. Omitting the ":" seems like it could be a >>>>> particularly easy mistake to make. On the other hand the fact that WebKit >>>>> (and I guess Gecko) already did it is an encouraging signal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Correct. Also, intending to keep current behavior for old pseudos that >>>> support single-colon in regular CSS (before, after, first-line, >>>> first-letter). If there are other exceptions with a lot of existing code we >>>> can consider adding them here. >>>> >>>> The way I'm thinking about this from a compat perspective is that if we >>>> keep supporting single-colon/no-colon for all pseudos, there would be more >>>> non-spec-compliant code written with those, that would seem to work in >>>> chrome while developing and then not work in other browsers. So aligning >>>> with the spec now is hopefully cleaner. >>>> >>>> However, if there are reasons to keep some of the parsing more lenient >>>> here I'm happy to hear and find the best solution for the web platform. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/CAJn%3DMYbLLqWEjSNYnt6Pw%2BcV75%3DryQ%3DbsDM%3DAXtktKW6C__kkQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJn%3DMYbLLqWEjSNYnt6Pw%2BcV75%3DryQ%3DbsDM%3DAXtktKW6C__kkQ%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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra_sH5ve-DA0-Op6gPf8DJv1OnsHCqYtD1xs%2Bb5HpVfoQg%40mail.gmail.com.
