On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 10:34 AM Stephen Chenney <schen...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 11:38 AM Andrew Paseltiner < > apaselti...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 9:50 PM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> With my HTML editor hat on, I support keeping parity between <a> and >>> <area>. Although <area> is used much less, we try to keep them symmetric >>> whenever possible. >>> >> Sounds to me like we should go ahead with this for parity. >> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 5:19 AM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/21/24 1:37 PM, Andrew Paseltiner wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 1:26 PM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/21/24 12:49 PM, Chromestatus wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Contact emails apaselti...@chromium.org >>>>> >>>>> Explainer >>>>> https://github.com/WICG/attribution-reporting-api/blob/main/EVENT.md#registering-attribution-sources >>>>> >>>>> Specification >>>>> https://wicg.github.io/attribution-reporting-api/#html-monkeypatches >>>>> >>>>> Summary >>>>> >>>>> For Attribution Reporting, the attributionsrc attribute was already >>>>> unintentionally processed on <area> elements due to code shared with <a>, >>>>> which intentionally supported that attribute. For completeness, we expose >>>>> the attribute on <area> with identical syntax and semantics to <a> and >>>>> without changing the previous processing: When an <area> tag with an >>>>> attributionsrc attribute is navigated, the foreground request may register >>>>> navigation sources and, if the attribute is non-empty, one or more >>>>> background requests will likewise be able to register navigation sources. >>>>> >>>>> Is this something developers actually want, i.e. are imagemaps a use >>>>> case advertisers are asking to be supported? If not, why not just fix what >>>>> seems to be a bug? >>>>> >>>> It's true that we haven't specifically heard from developers that they >>>> want this, but we also don't have any data about whether the existing >>>> behavior is being relied on, and I'm not clear on the prevalence of image >>>> maps for the relevant use cases in general. Is there existing precedent for >>>> supporting a navigation-related feature on <a> but not <area>? >>>> >>>> I don't have the answer to that - perhaps someone else will know. >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that we support this on multiple other navigation surfaces (<a>, >>>> window.open, and context-menu on <a>), and that the fix is quite simple >>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6022268>, >>>> I'd err on the side of not breaking anyone, but we could also try to gather >>>> usage data first. >>>> >>>> Yes, agree - we should take a look at usage/potential breakage here. >>>> Have you tried to look at HTTPArchive? This feature has shipped long enough >>>> that there should be something there (if anything exists at all). Or >>>> there's the regular UMA route, but that's slower. >>>> >>> It would surprise me if this data showed up in HTTPArchive -- the >> majority of attributionsrc uses will be in dynamically injected DOM >> elements. >> >> We could try to go with UMA, but it may not be worth the effort. >> > > After recent breakage (caused by me) there's a desire to add UseCounter or > other lightweight UMA tracking before changing web-facing behavior, > particularly when there is otherwise no real way of knowing if anyone is > relying on it. The lack of developer signals increases the risk, as does > the very long time the existing behavior has been in place. > > I do strongly agree that the feature is worth doing. > > Stephen. > I'm not sure I understand what we would be measuring? As I understand it, this intent is to expose attributionsrc on <area> where previously it wasn't exposed, although it was already processed. It doesn't sound any different from typical "new feature" intents, in that we don't usually check if names, for example, conflict with existing code. If anything, this seems even safer in that the actual behavior wouldn't change (due to a current Chromium bug). Thanks, Vlad > >> Blink component Blink >>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink> >>>>> >>>>> TAG review Covered by existing Attribution Reporting I2S as this is a >>>>> small change re-using the existing API surface. >>>>> >>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>> >>>>> Risks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>> >>>>> None >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>>> >>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>> >>>>> *Web developers*: No signals >>>>> >>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>> >>>>> WebView application risks >>>>> >>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Debuggability >>>>> >>>>> None >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>> Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? Yes >>>>> >>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>> ? Yes >>>>> >>>>> Flag name on about://flags None >>>>> >>>>> Finch feature name None >>>>> >>>>> Non-finch justification >>>>> >>>>> This is a minor change largely reusing existing code and behavior. The >>>>> only web-exposed detail here is the addition of an already-processed HTML >>>>> attribute to the corresponding tag's IDL definition. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>>> >>>>> Tracking bug https://issues.chromium.org/379275911 >>>>> >>>>> Measurement n/a >>>>> >>>>> Availability expectation Covered by existing Attribution Reporting >>>>> I2S as this is a small change re-using the existing API surface >>>>> >>>>> Adoption expectation Covered by existing Attribution Reporting I2S as >>>>> this is a small change re-using the existing API surface >>>>> >>>>> Adoption plan n/a >>>>> >>>>> Non-OSS dependencies >>>>> >>>>> Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open >>>>> source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>> Shipping on desktop 133 >>>>> Shipping on Android 133 >>>>> Shipping on WebView 133 >>>>> >>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>> >>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >>>>> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >>>>> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >>>>> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure >>>>> of >>>>> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>>> n/a >>>>> >>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6547509428879360?gate=6545976813420544 >>>>> >>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>> <https://chromestatus.com>. >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/673f72a6.2b0a0220.3bb1d2.02f2.GAE%40google.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/673f72a6.2b0a0220.3bb1d2.02f2.GAE%40google.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 visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5f406b3c-98f1-4f62-94e9-43e61bba4556%40chromium.org >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/5f406b3c-98f1-4f62-94e9-43e61bba4556%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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP6jJUgkRFLr%3DP5FumrCoOh1bFembn6FqASLcm4BtZ5Vg4b7rw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP6jJUgkRFLr%3DP5FumrCoOh1bFembn6FqASLcm4BtZ5Vg4b7rw%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 visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGsbWzQispi5Y8N7oWLjhS26U5p3TRs7HbZXcfjGyQg17Mgkfw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGsbWzQispi5Y8N7oWLjhS26U5p3TRs7HbZXcfjGyQg17Mgkfw%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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2M8bjyP5XhRd0kVeEdOe2zOGCfuhCU2JF9P3VonoP_53A%40mail.gmail.com.
