Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

M1 then. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 8:42 PM Mason Freed wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 3:08 PM Rick Byers wrote: >>>> >>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>> >>>>&g

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 3:08 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Interoperability and Compatibility >> >> Use counters are relatively high: >> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4272 >> However, analysis from Mozilla shows that perhaps the impact is not as >> large as the use counter

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

{Note: to make sure it's clear, this is the request to actually remove ("ship") the special rules, in M140.} Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11102 Design docs https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7867#issue-1218728578 Summary Th

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Interest Invokers

Hi Dan, sure: On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-7 dan...@microsoft.com wrote: - Draft spec (early draft is ok, but must be spec-like and associated with the appropriate standardization venue, or WICG) https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11006 (definitely still draft) - TA

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Interest Invokers

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org, chrom...@keithcirkel.co.uk Explainerhttps://open-ui.org/components/interest-invokers.explainer Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11006 Summary This feature adds an `interesttarget` attribute to and elements. The `interesttarget` attribute adds

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

gt;> properties. More information: >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTML/Element/Heading_Elements#specifying_a_uniform_font_size_for_h1 >>> >> Thanks! That's a helpful link. I've updated our deprecation message to look closer to yours, and to include that link. Th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

how to improve the effectiveness and clarity of the message! I do agree it would help to have a very clear message to avoid folks making changes they don't need to make. Thanks, Mason > On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 5:50:10 PM UTC-4 Mason Freed wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

ia use counters alone, and the only true test is to use Finch and slowly/carefully test a removal. Once that process is successful, we would disable it by default in code for all browsers. Thanks, Mason > Best, > > Alex > > On Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 5:20:03 PM UTC-8 Mason

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 7:46 PM Vladimir Levin wrote: > Re TAG: I don't believe we need a TAG review for deprecations or removals. Great, thanks for confirming. > On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 8:54:00 PM UTC-5 Domenic Denicola wrote: > > It wasn't clear to me that this was just in the initial "

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

Thanks Jason! Here's the new/updated email: Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone SpecificationNone Design docs https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7867#issue-1218728578 Summary The HTML spec contains a list of special rules for tags nested within , , , or tags: https://html.spe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

27;s enough to point you to the chromestatus page itself <https://chromestatus.com/feature/6192419898654720> to see the updated sections? Sorry. Thanks, Mason > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 2:30 AM Mason Freed wrote: > >> Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org >> >> Ex

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone SpecificationNone Summary The HTML spec contains a list of special rules for tags nested within , , , or tags: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html#sections-and-headings These special rules are deprecated, because they cause acc

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Interest Invokers

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org, lwar...@igalia.com, chrom...@keithcirkel.co.uk Explainerhttps://open-ui.org/components/interest-invokers.explainer Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11006 Summary This feature adds an `interesttarget` attribute to and elements. The `interestta

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Select parser relaxation

{Highlighting this since it isn't obvious from this intent: this is a deprecation trial for sites that might be broken by the select parser relaxation, and would like extra time to migrate to the new behavior. The OT will restore the *old* behavior, while the feature launches in M134 and changes Ch

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Dialog light dismiss

Thank you all! A few replies below... On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:39 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM3 > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 3:30:55 PM UTC+1 Vladimir Levin wrote: > >> LGTM2 >> >> I think this is an extremely useful attribute, so I don't doubt that w

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Dialog light dismiss

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://html.spec.whatwg.org/#attr-dialog-closedby Summary One of the nice features of the Popover API is its light dismiss behavior. This chromestatus is about bringing that same capability to ``. A new `closedby` attribute controls

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: DOM Parts

emove Trusted Type arguments, unless that was something done on purpose of > course) > Le 08/06/2023 à 18:36, Mason Freed a écrit : > > Contact emails mas...@chromium.org > > Explainer https://github.com/tbondwilkinson/dom-parts#readme > > Specification None > > Su

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Popover invoker and anchor positioning improvements

oviding the links (and additional context). >>> >>> LGTM1 >>> On 11/20/24 12:35 PM, Mason Freed wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 1:27 PM Mike Taylor >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *Gecko*: No signal >>>> >>>&

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Popover nested inside invoker shouldn't re-invoke it

I suspect, as >> you also point out, that this should have been at most a PSA. Because of >> this, I don't think we need TAG, explainer, and other items that would've >> otherwise been required. >> >> LGTM1 >> >> Thanks! >> Vlad >&

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Popover nested inside invoker shouldn't re-invoke it

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10770 Summary In this case: ``` Activate Clicking me shouldn't close me ``` clicking the button properly activates the popover, however, clicking on the popover itself after that should **not** clo

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Popover invoker and anchor positioning improvements

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 1:27 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > *Gecko*: No signal > > *WebKit*: No signal > > Can we request signals from WebKit & Gecko (or do we already have them)? > Good callout, thanks. I just updated the chromestatus to add links and descriptions for implementer positions. This issue

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: popover=hint

e shipping it anyway. > > /Daniel > On 2024-11-18 18:06, Mason Freed wrote: > > Thanks for the LGTMs. One comment... > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 8:30 AM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> LGTM2 - I agree that the use cases are compelling and see there is >> significant demand

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: popover=hint

its of this feature regardless. > > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2024 at 2:54:32 AM UTC+9 Mason Freed wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:20 AM Mike Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9778 >>> >

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Popover invoker and anchor positioning improvements

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10728 Summary This chromestatus represents the following related set of changes, which were resolved in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9144#issuecomment-2195095228 and landed in https://github.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: popover=hint

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:20 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9778 > > I see that WebKit is opposed to landing this PR. I don't fully understand > the objection - there are other instances of different UX patterns between > Desktop and Mobile that users se

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: popover=hint

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://open-ui.org/components/popover-hint.research.explainer Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9778 Summary The Popover API (https://chromestatus.com/feature/5463833265045504) specifies the behavior for two values of the `popover` attr

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Dialog light dismiss

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone SpecificationNone Summary One of the nice features of the Popover API is its light dismiss behavior. This chromestatus is about bringing that same capability to ``. A new `closedby` attribute controls behavior: `` - no user-triggered closing of di

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Throw exception for popovers/dialogs in non-active documents

ing the rollout > sound like a reasonable approach to me. > Great! Thanks for the feedback. Fingers crossed there aren't any problems. Thanks, Mason > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 8:06 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 3:47 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Throw exception for popovers/dialogs in non-active documents

ave to be via a specific use counter for that case. Instead, my plan has been to monitor carefully, and Finch this change back off in the case that there is real usage of this case. LMK what you think. Thanks, Mason > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 4:50 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> Contact e

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Throw exception for popovers/dialogs in non-active documents

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10705 Summary This is a corner case change that hopefully does not impact developers. Previously calling `showPopover()` or `showModal()` on a popover or dialog that resides within an inactive document would silen

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Popover invoker and anchor positioning improvements

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9144#issuecomment-2195095228 Summary This chromestatus represents the following related set of changes, which were resolved in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9144#issuecomment-2195095228: 1. a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:58 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> LGTM1 to remove in M129, given the usecounter numbers >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:35 PM Mason Freed >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

Thanks all! On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:28 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM3 > On 7/25/24 4:35 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:24 AM Daniel Bratell > wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> >> /Daniel >> On 2024-07-25 00:22, Mason Fre

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:51 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Have you had a chance to investigate what a breakage looks like by >>> checking the sites using the feature? >>> >> > More specifically, as discussed previously, this usage is coming from a 3P > app that me

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

rea` that >> is shipped and is being deprecated. >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM Mason Freed wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:17 AM Vladimir Levin >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just to clarify: this intent is to add `pos

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

Thank you all! On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:51 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > So the idea is to add `position-area` in M129, and deprecate (but not yet >>> remove) `inset-area` also in M129. And then ideally remove `inset-area` in >>> M131. Two milestones seems like enough time for developers to migrate,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

to deprecate the old name (inset-area) is this one <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/SLOin9wVpZA/m/WJkEz6faAwAJ> . Thanks, Mason > Thanks, > Vlad > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:23 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> {NOTE: this is a replacement of th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > From the other emails, there is a 0.02% usage of this property right now, > so it may be worthwhile to document the planned timeline for the > rename process. > > This lists M131 as the shipping milestone, but I assume we want to do this > b

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

I've obsoleted this chromestatus entry, and created a fresh one with the correct (I think) feature type. I have sent a fresh I2S on that entry. Please disregard this one. Thanks, Mason On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:12 AM Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 3:02 AM Yoav W

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename inset-area to position-area

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:59 PM Mason Freed wrote: > This is the email template you get when you use the "Web developer-facing > change to existing code" feature type on chromestatus. I do believe that's > the best description of this change, right? This is not a "N

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

{NOTE: this is a replacement of this chromestatus , which has the wrong feature type and cannot be changed.} Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org, andr...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specification https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10395#issu

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

{NOTE: this is a replacement of this chromestatus , which has the wrong feature type and cannot be changed.} Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specification https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001 S

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

wrote: > LGTM3 for the deprecation in 127. I'd like to hold off on stamping the > removal approval until later but threatening (well, targetting) removal in > 129 seems ok. > > /Daniel > On 2024-05-31 02:44, Mason Freed wrote: > > Thanks for the LGTMs! > > On

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename inset-area to position-area

ese intent emails. I was assuming this still requires 3 LGTMs from owners. Thanks, Mason On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 8:15 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org >> >> Specification >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-222

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename inset-area to position-area

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Specification https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001 Summary The CSSWG resolved to rename this property from `inset-area` to `position-area`. See the CSSWG discussion here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuec

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 3:02 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > Note: They can preemptively handle this change today by using >> position-try:flip-inline instead. >> >> >>> It's tricky, because waiting could actually cause *more* breakage, even >>> with a deprecation period, and the numbers look qu

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Rename position-try-options to position-try-fallbacks

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org, andr...@chromium.org Specification https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10395#issuecomment-2192127524 Summary The CSSWG resolved to rename this property, because "fallbacks" more accurately describes what this property controls. The word "options" is a bi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

sole warnings) it makes more sense to just disable in one shot? I'll try to reach out to the sites I noticed. Thanks, Mason > /Daniel > On 2024-05-29 10:22, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:10 PM Vladimir Levin > wro

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 8:15 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > Interoperability and Compatibility >> >> The use counter for getInnerHTML() ( >> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3874) >> peaked at 0.05% of page loads using this function as of January 2024, and >> dropped preci

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

{Note: I previously sent what should have been an intent to deprecate and remove for this feature. However, that one failed to make it to the right dashboards due to the subject line being incorrect. See that prior conversation right here

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate Mutation Events

confusing >> debugging experience. >> > Thanks. At least two votes for straight-to-100%, so that's what I'll do. > LGTM1 to this plan, while being ready to adapt to things that come up in >> the process. >> > I will definitely be very careful in rolling

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 11:00 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > I looked into the UKM data about three months ago, before I started the >> experiment to disable all mutation events on Canary/Dev/Beta. I looked at >> the top ~30 UKM hits and dug into the site's code to see what the usage >> was. Many (~4

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:36 PM Vladimir Levin wrote: > I recall that some of this usage was feature detected: if mutation events > are supported, use them; otherwise, use something else. Unfortunately, that > makes it difficult to estimate the expected number of breakages. I agree > though that

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate Mutation Events

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/uievents/#legacy-event-types Summary Mutation Events, including `DOMSubtreeModified`, `DOMNodeInserted`, `DOMNodeRemoved`, `DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument`, `DOMNodeInsertedIntoDocument`, and `DOMCharacterDataModifie

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

discuss each of them on the issues instead of here. From our initial review, it looks like they can be addressed, and we are committed to adjusting this feature as needed to make sure it works for developers. That applies to these issues as well. Thanks, Mason On Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 7:30:3

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

itize them appropriately. Thanks, Mason On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 7:03 PM Florian Rivoal wrote: > > On 2024/05/03 5:43, Mason Freed wrote: > > I stand by what I said - we will definitely be open to well-justified > > changes after we ship! More inline below. > > Despite the best

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 10:04 AM fantasai wrote: > On 4/16/24 09:57, Mason Freed wrote: > > One thing to note is that we’re very committed to addressing any open > issues, either now or after additional issues are discovered. > > You won't be as open to change after you shi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

;>> >>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:34 AM Mike Taylor >>> wrote: >>> >>>> LGTM2. And thanks to fantasai for giving a more nuanced read on the >>>> lack of an official, published WebKit position. I appreciate the rest of >>>> the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

gt; developers will be a net positive now, vs delaying until some future >> post-review time. >> On 4/16/24 1:58 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >> >> LGTM1. Excited to see this ship! >> >> On Monday, April 15, 2024 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: >> >&

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

“done” yet. Are there other a11y issues related to anchor pos? We’re not aware of any, but please do raise the ones you see. Your point about having the a11y story documented is a good one. We will make sure to include that story in blog posts, etc. If you have particular points to include, p

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

On Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 7:58:18 PM UTC-7 dan...@microsoft.com wrote: I'm really excited to see this move forward! Thanks! Me too - exciting after about 4 years of working on it, right? Thanks for all of the help on this, especially early on. For the TAG review

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

Contact emails *mas...@chromium.org *Explainer *https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/CSSAnchoredPositioning/explainer.md https://xiaochengh.github.io/Explainers/css-anchor-po

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

via > `setHTMLUnsafe()` and that Mozilla has an intent out for this new version > of the getter, which suggests to me that we should, indeed, handle the > streams thing separately. > > LGTM1. > > On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > >> Thanks f

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

Thanks for the comments! On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:26 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > I think this is the case, but just to clarify: this is shipping a new > function and not renaming/updating the previously shipped one, right? So, > at least for the time being, there will be two similar functions shi

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/8867#issuecomment-1856696628 Specificationhttps://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-element-gethtml Summary The prototype implementation (which was shipped in 2020 and then shape-changed in 2023) contained a method called

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Allow top layer elements to be nested within popovers

I think there is a small compat risk here but it should be >> manageable via the combination of: low popover + dialog usage so far, >> presumably by actively-updated sites, and a Finch flag if something breaks >> really badly. >> >> On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 2:58:

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Allow top layer elements to be nested within popovers

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10116 Summary The prior behavior caused issues if a top layer element (dialog, fullscreen, etc.) was DOM-nested within a popover. The inner element, when promoted to the top layer, would cause the o

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

few days, maybe. Thanks, Mason > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 5:11 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> On 3/19/24 6:51 PM, Mason Freed wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 1:44 PM Mike Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mason, >>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

, it's not much work to request that. Ok, that's a very good point - I'll do that now. Thanks, Mason On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:11 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > On 3/19/24 6:51 PM, Mason Freed wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 1:44 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

ot required yet, while I’m just deprecating but not yet removing the feature? Thanks, Mason On 3/15/24 6:49 PM, Mason Freed wrote: > > Contact emails mas...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10139 > > Summary > >

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10139 Summary The includeShadowRoots argument was a never-standardized argument to the DOMParser.parseFromString() function, which was there to allow imperative parsing of HTML content that contains

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: Mutation Events

ugs. I have created a bug template <https://issues.chromium.org/issues/new?component=1456718&template=1948649> for that purpose. Questions or concerns: please let me know. Thanks, Mason On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 4:05:47 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:4

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Shadow root clonable attribute

Thank you all! On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:43 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM3 > > On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 1:27:26 PM UTC+1 Manuel Rego wrote: > >> LGTM2. >> >> On 17/02/2024 02:40, Mason Freed wrote: >> >

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

mutations? Thanks, Mason > /Daniel > On 2024-02-09 21:35, Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:52 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < > yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM to run a deprecation trial M124-M134 inclusive. >> > > Thanks! > >&

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Shadow root clonable attribute

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:30 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1 to ship (see below). > Thanks! > It looks like Safari has only shipped to Beta... > Yes, this was a recent consensus/spec, so it hasn't made it all the way to stable yet. > > *Gecko*: Positive (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Shadow root clonable attribute

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#shadowroot-clonable Summary This enables individual control over whether a shadow root is clonable (via standard platform cloning commands such as `cloneNode()`). Imperative shadow roots can now be control

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:52 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > LGTM to run a deprecation trial M124-M134 inclusive. > Thanks! > > May our mutations no longer be eventful!! > 😊 > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:50 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

rrect. Here’s the request for deprecation thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/qDsKRU-cQ_4/m/P_iXWapTBgAJ And I’ll send a request for removal closer to 126. Thanks, Mason > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 5:12 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Fe

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:38 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > Note that them shipping 2.0 and everyone upgrading to 2.0 are not the same > thing, and is unlikely to happen at the same time.. > Agreed for sure. That’s why I’ve been trying to get them to confirm exactly what functionality will b

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

not sure what happened to the :, I didn’t edit it. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for catching it. So I should re-send the entire thing? > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:30 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:10 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >> yoavw

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:37 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > It's good to know that QuillJS seems to be addressing their issue in 2.0, > although the currently published stable version is still 1.x. I just wanted > to verify the timeline for disabling these features. The trial is for > 124-134 and the

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 7:12 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > This is very exciting! Thank you for working on this. > Thanks! > Do you know whether the existing usage is feature checked? 1.58% seems > very high, but if it's feature checked and fallback is something like > mutation observer, then it w

[blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/uievents/#legacy-event-types Summary Mutation Events, including `DOMSubtreeModified`, `DOMNodeInserted`, `DOMNodeRemoved`, `DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument`, `DOMNodeInsertedIntoDocument`, and `DOMCharacterDataModifie

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:10 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > Also, what are the timelines you have in mind in terms of deprecation? > I'd like to try starting to turn the feature off ASAP, in M123, to avoid an effect I've discovered where usage spikes when I announce d

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Shadow root clonable attribute

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#shadowroot-clonable Summary This enables individual control over whether a shadow root is clonable (via standard platform cloning commands such as `cloneNode()`). By default, declarative shadow roots are c

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 8:05 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > Yeah, I think the risk is low here. >> > Great, thanks! > FWIW, I couldn't find any relevant github or contact info for this library > but if you had better luck finding contact information, we might as well > file an issue or send an emai

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 12:27:50 PM UTC-8 vmp...@google.com wrote: Interoperability and Compatibility The use counter for getInnerHTML() (https://chromestatus.com/ metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3874) shows 0.04% of page loads using this function as of January 2024. That represents

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/8867#issuecomment-1856696628 SpecificationNone Summary The prototype implementation (which was shipped in 2020 and then shape-changed in 2023) contained a method called `getInnerHTML()` that could be used to serial

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/8867#issuecomment-1856696628 SpecificationNone Summary The prototype implementation (which was shipped in 2020 and then shape-changed in 2023) contained a method called `getInnerHTML()` that could be used to serial

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

Closing the loop - the old `shadowroot` attribute was successfully removed from Blink over M119/M120. It's now fully disabled everywhere. No bugs were reported. Thanks, Mason On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:50:00 AM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > Hearing no objections, I'm moving

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

Hearing no objections, I'm moving forward with this feature removal starting in M119. Thanks, Mason On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > Checking back in on this deprecation thread. The use counter for the > deprecated shadowroot attribut

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

% of stable when 119 is released, holding for several weeks to monitor for breakage. If none is reported, I'll move to 2% for another week, etc. Any objections? Thanks, Mason On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > I'm checking back in on this de

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: HTMLSelectElement showPicker()

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:47:02 AM UTC-7 Luke wrote: That makes perfect sense. For now I've removed the target milestones all together (they were rather arbitrary). But targeting 120 or 121 seems like a good idea. As for merging the spec change I think it should be ready to go assuming m

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: HTMLSelectElement showPicker()

I'm generally supportive of adding showPicker to select elements - it's a handy API for developers and it avoids some JS hacks. I do think we should a) land the spec changes , and b) allow some developer test time, before we ship this API. There were som

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:31:30 AM UTC-7 PhistucK wrote: I guess all of them would be good. Not really why only a few pseudo-classes are listed there... This sounds like a great feature request for devtools in general. I wonder if we could separate it out from shipping this one set

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

t's Chromium only. But I'll keep that idea in my back pocket, thanks. Thanks, Mason > On 8/14/23 7:09 PM, Mason Freed wrote: > > I'm checking back in on this deprecation thread. In the intervening 5 > milestones, the use counter for the deprecated attribute > <

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

portion of Canary/Dev and maybe Beta users, to suss out problems and improve visibility of this deprecation to site owners. We're now about 3 months out from 119 (the target removal milestone) going to stable. Any objections? Thanks, Mason On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:36:25 PM UT

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: DOM Parts

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/tbondwilkinson/dom-parts#readme SpecificationNone Summary In many applications and frameworks, JavaScript code needs to locate and mutate a set of "nodes of interest." The current methodology for finding "nodes of interest" is either

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: Mutation Events

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:46 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Thanks for taking that on!! > I may regret it, but thanks. > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:29 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> Motivation >> >> Mutation Events have been deprecated for over a decade, with the >

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: Mutation Events

Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/uievents/#legacy-event-types Summary Synchronous Mutation Events, including `DOMSubtreeModified`, `DOMNodeInserted`, `DOMNodeRemoved`, `DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument`, `DOMNodeInsertedIntoDocument`, and `DOMCharacte

  1   2   >