On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:12 AM Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks! I replied again. :) > > 2023년 1월 6일 금요일 오후 7시 50분 43초 UTC+9에 [email protected]님이 작성: > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:59 PM Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Added missing links. >>> >>> 2023년 1월 6일 금요일 오전 12시 52분 25초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>> >>>> Thanks for asking! >>>> >>>> >>>> > Is this change covered by a base feature flag? >>>> >>>> This is behind 'CSSAtSupportsAlwaysNonForgivingParsing' flag, and the >>>> flag doesn't have 'base_feature' field yet. I'll add the field to the >>>> feature before enable it. >>>> >>>> >>>> > Can you clarify if the ':has()' behavior will change here or not? >>>> This last sentence seems to contradict the original message of the intent. >>>> >>>> > Can you confirm that both these cases won't break? >>>> >>>> There's a bit of twisted history here, so it would be better to answer >>>> these two questions at once. (Sorry for the long answer!) >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. What can this feature change? >>>> >>>> After this feature enabled, `@supports selector()` can return different >>>> result when it checks forgiving-parsing pseudo class. >>>> >>>> For example, `@supports selector(:where(:foo, a))` returns true now >>>> (forgiving parsing drops invalid `:foo` inside `:where()`, so the >>>> `:where(:foo, a)` becomes a valid selector `:where(a)` after forgiving >>>> parsing), but it will return false after this feature enabled >>>> (`:where(:foo, a)` will be invalid inside `@supports selector()`). >>>> >>> >> OK, so for where we're risking seeing more fallbacks than before, but >> according to your manual inspection, that seems fine? >> > > Yes, I think so. > Based on the usage metrics, only about 0.5 % of page loads could be > affected by this feature. Considering the manual investigation on the top > pages (only 1 of of 10 is for `:where()`, and the rest are for `:has()`. no > urls for `:is()`), the ratio of the `:where()` is likely to be much less > than 0.5 %. > In the manual inspection, how many function calls had a mix of valid and invalid selectors? (that would be impacted by this change) > > But I cannot say that this feature will not affect at all, or that will be > the exact numbers that this feature actually affects after 110(unforgiving > `:has()`) released. > > I think we can get the number at about Apr (the next month after the 110 > released). > > Will it be better to wait more so that we can see the number only for > `:where()` and `:is()`? > > >>>> 2. How is this feature related to `:has()`? >>>> >>>> This `@supports` behavior change was applied to the spec [1] while >>>> resolving an issue of `:has()` [2]. At that time, `:has()` was a >>>> forgiving-parsing pseudo class. So this feature was able to change the >>>> result of `@supports selector(:has(:foo, a))` at first. >>>> >>>> But it is not true now since `:has()` is changed to unforgiving while >>>> resolving the jQuery `:has()` conflict issue [3]. >>>> >>> >> Hmm, so the behavior change to `:has` landed >> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4090967> in >> M110 without a feature flag nor an intent. How confident are we that this >> is safe? >> ^^ +Rune Lillesveen >> > > I think it would not make a critical issue since, > 1. the change only affects `:has()` validity if the `:has()` contains both > valid and invalid arguments (e.g. `:has(:foo, a) { ... }`), and it will not > be used often in the wild. > I got a comment saying something similar while landing the jQuery > workaround - > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1235724730 > 2. the change fixes the inconsistency in the existing :has() validity > logic. > - Currently, `:has()`, `:has(:foo)` and `:has(:foo, :bar)` are > invalid, but `:has(:foo, a)` is valid. > - After the change merged, all the above are invalid selector. > 3. Basically, the conflict from the change(making `:has()` unforgiving) > can be easily fixed by changing the selector. (e.g. change `:has(:foo, a) > {...}` to `:has(:where(:foo, a)) {...}` or `where(:has(:foo), :has(a)) > {...}`), > > Will it be better to add a feature for this change and add some metrics > (something like, how many page loads use :has() with both valid and invalid > selector) before releasing it to stable? > Adding a feature (including a base_feature) to the `:has` change would be good. Would you be able to merge that back to 110? I think we should tie the `:has` change to this intent. The risk profile seems similar. > > >> >> Now this feature doesn't change the `@supports selector(:has(:foo, a))` >>>> result. `@supports selector(:has(:foo, a))` returns always false regardless >>>> of this feature since `:has(:foo, a)` is an invalid selector both inside >>>> and outside of `@supports selector()`. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. The history about empty `:has()` >>>> >>>> This is a tricky part. >>>> When the 105(the first `:has()` enabled version) is released to stable, >>>> a workaround was merged [4] to avoid the jQuery conflict issue. >>>> >>>> At that time, `:has()` was a forgiving-parsing pseudo class, so >>>> `:has(:foo)` and `:has()` should be a valid selector. >>>> >>>> But the workaround changed the behavior - make `:has()` invalid when >>>> all the arguments are dropped. >>>> - `:has()` is invalid because it doesn't have any argument. >>>> - `:has(:foo)` is invalid because it doesn't have any argument after >>>> the invalid argument `:foo` is dropped. >>>> - `:has(:foo, a)` is valid because it has a valid argument `a` after >>>> the invalid argument `:foo` is dropped. >>>> >>>> Last December, the jQuery conflict issue was resolved [3] and it was >>>> applied to 110 [5] - make `:has()` unforgiving. >>>> - `:has()` is invalid because it doesn't have any argument. >>>> - `:has(:foo)` is invalid because it has an invalid argument `:foo`. >>>> - `:has(:foo, a)` is invalid because it has an invalid argument `:foo`. >>>> >>>> Due to this, the result of `@supports selector(:has())` has been false >>>> since 105. >>>> >>> OK, so the `:has` change only differs from currently shipped behavior if >> there's a mix of invalid and valid arguments as part of the supports >> statement. And given the fact that the M110 shipped behavior is stricter, >> what we may see is more sites fallback if they have such :has supports >> statements, but we wouldn't expect real breakage, because presumably the >> fallbacks are reasonable? >> > Yes, exactly. As I replied at above, the 110 change fixes the > inconsistency of :has() validity, and the selector expression can be simply > fixed if it creates actual problem on a site. > > In the perspective of the jQuery `:has()` conflict issue, this change > fixes remaining bugs that the jQuery workaround doesn't fix. > Currently jQuery has a bug on `$(':has(span, :contains(abc))')` since > `@supports selector()` returns true for the selector and > `querySelectorAll()` doesn't throw invalid selector exception. > After making `:has()` unforgiving, jQuery can do its custom traversal for > `:contains()` since `@supports selector()` returns false and > `querySelectorAll()` throws exception. > > >> >>>> 4. Why does this feature not affect URLs that use WordPress yootheme? >>>> >>>> Because it checks with empty `:has()` - `@supports not >>>> selector(:has())`. >>>> >>> `@supports not selector(:has())` has been always true since 105, and it >>>> will still be true after this feature enabled because this feature doesn't >>>> affect unforgiving parsing. >>>> >>>> The strange point is that the statement is useless(because it is always >>>> true) and semantically incorrect [6]. >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Why does this feature not affect URLs that use jQuery `:has()`? >>>> >>>> Because the jQuery `has()` conflict issue was already resolved by >>>> making `:has()` unforgiving [3], [5], and this feature doesn't affect >>>> unforgiving parsing. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. In short, >>>> >>>> This feature will not affect `:has()` inside `@supports selector()`. >>>> >>>> This feature can affects `:is()` or `where()` inside `@supports >>>> selector()`. (only when its argument is empty or invalid) >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope that this has clarified the question. >>>> >>> -------- >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/3a2efb33d12f6667d6142e89609a982978b49223 >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7280 >>> >>> [3] >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1341347244 >>> >>> [4] >>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/2b818b338146d89e524c4fabc2c6f7fd7776937a >>> >>> [5] >>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/7278cf3bf630c7791ba4b4885eb7da64dc16eab2 >>> [6] It uses `@supports` like this: >>> @supports not selector(:has()) { >>> .woocommerce:has(> .woocommerce-MyAccount-navigation){ >>> display:flex; >>> justify-content:space-between >>> } >>> } >>> I'm not sure but the `not` seems to be a workaround to make the >>> block works. >>> >>> >>>> 2023년 1월 5일 목요일 오후 7시 8분 7초 UTC+9에 [email protected]님이 작성: >>>> >>>>> Thanks!! >>>>> >>>>> A couple of questions below, plus another one: Is this change >>>>> covered by a base feature >>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/third_party/blink/renderer/platform/RuntimeEnabledFeatures.md#generate-a-instance-from-a-blink-feature> >>>>> flag? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34 PM Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I checked the top URLs in the ChromeStatus page. (TL;DR - this >>>>>> feature looks not affect the existing behavior of the top URLs) >>>>>> >>>>>> I was able to categorize the URLs as below. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Checking `:has()` support >>>>>> - Most of the URLs use `@supports` to check `:has()` support. >>>>>> - `@support` behavior will not be changed for `:has()` (We can ignore >>>>>> this case since `:has()` will be unforgiving after 110 released) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you clarify if the ':has()' behavior will change here or not? This >>>>> last sentence seems to contradict the original message of the intent. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - There are 2 sub cases: >>>>>> - URLs using WordPress yootheme [1] >>>>>> - URLs using jQuery `has()` [2] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you confirm that both these cases won't break? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Checking `:where()` support >>>>>> - Only one URL(https://learn.ooznest.co.uk/) uses `@supports` to >>>>>> check `:where()` support. >>>>>> - `@supports` behavior will be changed for `:where()` after this >>>>>> feature enabled, but it will not affect the behavior of the web page >>>>>> since >>>>>> the page handles both support and not support case[3]. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only problem that I can see from the top URLs is checking >>>>>> `:where()` support, but it looks very rare case and it may be already >>>>>> handled like learn.ooznest.co.uk. >>>>>> (I was able to see some incorrect usages while checking[4], but I >>>>>> think it is another discussion of checking empty `:where()`, `:has()`) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that this feature does not have critical impact on the >>>>>> existing behavior. And as shared previously, Safari and Firefox already >>>>>> changed their implementations. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about shipping this? >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] 6 URLs (6/10): >>>>>> - https://lavalmore.gr/ >>>>>> - https://www.kussenwereld.nl/ >>>>>> - https://thelocustgroveflowers.com/ >>>>>> - https://shop.bmgi.com.au/ >>>>>> - https://badaptor.com/ >>>>>> - https://suicidprev.se/ >>>>>> 'theme1.css' of yootheme contains `@supports not selector(:has()) >>>>>> {...}` statement. >>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>> https://thelocustgroveflowers.com/wp-content/themes/locust-ff/css/theme.1.css?ver=1669913762 >>>>>> ) >>>>>> The `@supports not...` statement looks weird since the >>>>>> conditional block contains rules using `:has()`. >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] 2 URLs (2/10): >>>>>> - https://www.midroog.co.il/ >>>>>> - https://whadam.tistory.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> [3] A stylesheet file has `@supports selector(:where()) {...}` and >>>>>> `@supports not selector(:where()) {...}` statement. >>>>>> ( >>>>>> https://d3015z1jd0uox2.cloudfront.net/Assets/Guide/black/guide-all-j81VMtmAdGEcl2BaHR40jA.css >>>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> [4] Passing empty `:has()` or `:where()` to `@supports selector()` to >>>>>> check whether a browser supports the pseudo class. >>>>>> (e.g. `@supports not selector(:has())`, `@supports >>>>>> selector(:where())`) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2023년 1월 3일 화요일 오후 6시 18분 31초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Yoav, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chrome status shows the number from stable now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I checked these metrics. >>>>>>> - https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4361 >>>>>>> (CSSAtSupportsDropInvalidWhileForgivingParsing) >>>>>>> - https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/976 >>>>>>> (CSSAtRuleSupports) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to the above metrics, some pages will be affected by this >>>>>>> feature but it seems to be a relatively small fraction: >>>>>>> - Only 0.50 % of page loads are dropping invalid selector while >>>>>>> parsing forgiving selector inside '@supports selector()'. >>>>>>> - 41.10% of page loads are using '@supports', but only 1.21% >>>>>>> (0.5/41.1) of the page loads are dropping invalid selector while parsing >>>>>>> forgiving selector inside '@supports selector()'. >>>>>>> - Less than 0.01 % of top sites are dropping invalid selector while >>>>>>> parsing forgiving selector inside '@supports selector()'. >>>>>>> - 50.89% of top URLs are using '@supports', but less than 0.02% >>>>>>> (0.01/50.89) of the URLs are dropping invalid selector while parsing >>>>>>> forgiving selector inside '@supports selector()'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we move forward based on this? Or should I check another number? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2022년 12월 10일 토요일 오전 1시 26분 57초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The 108 branch is shipping to stable now, but the numbers from >>>>>>>> stable doesn't seems to be applied to the ChromeStatus stats yet. It >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> that the stable numbers will be applied at Jan. 1st. >>>>>>>> - https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4361 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll reschedule the feature release to 112 so that we can revisit >>>>>>>> this thread when we can get the numbers from stable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> p.s. 1 >>>>>>>> This feature is not related to :has() anymore since :has() is now >>>>>>>> unforgiving: >>>>>>>> - Issue resolution: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7676#issuecomment-1341347244 >>>>>>>> - CL : >>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4090967 >>>>>>>> This feature only affects :is()/:where() inside @supports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> p.s. 2 >>>>>>>> Once I get the stable number, I'll provide a comparison of these >>>>>>>> two numbers that I can get from the ChromeStatus stats: >>>>>>>> - Percentage of page loads that drop invalid while forgiving >>>>>>>> parsing inside @supports selector >>>>>>>> ( >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4361) >>>>>>>> - Percentage of page loads that use @supports rule >>>>>>>> (https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/976 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The comparison doesn't prove anything, but I think we can at least >>>>>>>> guess how much the @supports change affects the existing behavior: >>>>>>>> Assuming the current numbers in the above links are from stable, >>>>>>>> about 40% of the loaded pages use @supports rule, but only 0.002% of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> loaded pages hit the case of dropping invalid selector while forgiving >>>>>>>> selector parsing inside @supports. By simply comparing the numbers, I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> we can say that 1/20000 of the @supports rule usages will be affected >>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>> the feature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2022년 10월 10일 월요일 오후 11시 18분 41초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To continue this thread after getting the stable Chrome's use >>>>>>>>> counter, I changed the estimated milestone of this feature from 109 >>>>>>>>> to 111. >>>>>>>>> I'll share the use counter after the version 108 released. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2022년 9월 29일 목요일 오전 11시 52분 43초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/22 10:07, Byungwoo Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/22 00:40, Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:25 PM Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Yoav and Mike, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! I replied inline. >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/22 22:18, Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 3:15 PM Mike Taylor < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Byungwoo, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/22 4:34 AM, Byungwoo Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/#support-definition-ext >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some functional selectors are parsed forgivingly. (e.g. :is(), >>>>>>>>>>>> :has()) If an argument of the functional selectors is unknown or >>>>>>>>>>>> invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>> the argument is dropped but the selector itself is not >>>>>>>>>>>> invalidated. To >>>>>>>>>>>> provide a way of detecting the unknown or invalid arguments in >>>>>>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>>>>>> functional selectors, this feature applies the CSS Working Group >>>>>>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>>>>>> resolution: - @supports uses non-forgiving parsing for all >>>>>>>>>>>> selectors ( >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7280#issuecomment-1143852187 >>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am I understanding correctly that content that now uses a >>>>>>>>>>> functional selector argument that's invalid may break as a result >>>>>>>>>>> of this? >>>>>>>>>>> If so, do we have usecounters to that effect? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it can change the previous behavior. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This changes the selector parsing behavior only for the >>>>>>>>>>> selectors inside @supports selector(). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So if authors expected true for '@supports >>>>>>>>>>> selector(:is(:some-invalid-selector))', this feature will break it >>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>> the return value will be changed to false after this feature is >>>>>>>>>>> enabled. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that we have the usecounters of the case: counting >>>>>>>>>>> drop of invalid selector inside @supports selector. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't exists but it is needed, I think we can add it. >>>>>>>>>>> Will it be better to add it to get use counters before ship it? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, knowing the order of magnitude of potential breakage would >>>>>>>>>> be good. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I landed a CL to add the use counter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/d060459d174c468a78d69d4e2a12925e0e7ab216 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It counts the drop of invalid selector while forgiving selector >>>>>>>>>> parsing inside @supports selector(). We can see the stats with >>>>>>>>>> CSSAtSupportsDropInvalidWhileForgivingParsing(4361): >>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4361 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This will be in 108 version so hopefully we can get the use >>>>>>>>>> counter after the version is released. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - beta (Oct 27) >>>>>>>>>> - stable (Nov 29) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll share the stats when it released. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component Blink >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you expand on why you think a TAG review is not needed here? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I thought that we don't need TAG review and the reason was >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - This is already specified in the spec: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/#support-definition-ext >>>>>>>>>>> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/#support-definition-ext> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Firefox already landed it: >>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Will it be better to change the TAG review status to 'Pending'? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Gecko*: Shipped/Shipping >>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *WebKit*: Positive >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Web developers*: Positive >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please link to these signals? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WebKit: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Explained about this in a blog post: >>>>>>>>>>> https://webkit.org/blog/13096/css-has-pseudo-class/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Thumbs ups in the CSSWG issue: >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7280 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - jQuery applied the spec: >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/5107 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rego let me know what I missed (Thanks!), so I'm updating this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This specification change has been implemented in WebKit as well >>>>>>>>>> as Firefox: >>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244808 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I updated the 'Safari views' and 'Tag review' in the chromestatus >>>>>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *WebKit:* Shipped/Shipping >>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244808 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Tag review* >>>>>>>>>> No TAG review >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - This is already specified in the spec: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-conditional-4/#support-definition-ext >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Firefox and WebKit already implemented it: >>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248 >>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=244808 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Tag review status* >>>>>>>>>> pending >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could this update affect the shipping decisions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b03b90af-3911-40b4-dd6f-b12764826cf1%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b03b90af-3911-40b4-dd6f-b12764826cf1%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfVPbBMCDX%3DAbiH_jq%2B749n%3DQRmFvXvNrKd8u5hik0KStA%40mail.gmail.com.
