LGTM1 to ship in M111 (while monitoring the relevant UMAs from M110) after merging back the use counters.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 4:40 PM Rune Lillesveen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 1:00 PM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:53 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> thanks! :) >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:42 AM Byungwoo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Something wrong with the citation style of the previous mail. I'll send >>>> the reply again. >>>> >>>> >>> 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. >>>> >>> >> Just to clarify - 0.5% is about 2 orders of magnitude higher than the >> levels of breakage we're typically comfortable with. >> But from our discussion it seems that the levels of actual breakage are >> likely to be significantly smaller. >> >> 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) >>>> There is no mix of valid and invalid in the manual inspection for the >>>> top URLs. :has() and :where() are used only with empty argument or valid >>>> argument. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> 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. >>>> I made a CL that adds 'CSSPseudoHasNonForgivingParsing' feature ( >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6177049203441664) for the change: >>>> - https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4151453 >>>> >>>> The CL also adds two metrics so that we can get usecounter of the cases >>>> that the change affects: >>>> - CSSPseudoHasContainsMixOfValidAndInvalid : ':has(a, :foo)' >>>> - CSSPseudoIsWhereContainsMixOfValidAndInvalid : ':is(a, :foo)', >>>> ':where(a, :foo)' >>>> >>>> I'll try to merge the CL to 110 branch after it landed. >>>> >>> >> That'd be great to land and merge back. >> +Rune Lillesveen <[email protected]> - can you help make that happen? >> > > Yes. > > Once we have that in place, I'd be comfortable with turning on the feature >> on M111, and carefully watching the (internal) UMA use counter stats for >> Beta as it rolls out, and revert it if we'd see that actual breakage is >> likely to be larger than expected. >> >> Rune, Byungwoo - what do you think? >> > > Sgtm. > > >> >>>> >>>> 2023년 1월 11일 수요일 오후 2시 33분 10초 UTC+9에 Byungwoo Lee님이 작성: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2023년 1월 9일 월요일 오후 7시 36분 34초 UTC+9에 [email protected]님이 작성: >>>>> 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) >>>>> There is no mix of valid and invalid in the manual inspection for the >>>>> top URLs. :has() and :where() are used only with empty argument or valid >>>>> argument. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I made a CL that adds 'CSSPseudoHasNonForgivingParsing' feature ( >>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6177049203441664) for the change: >>>>> - https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4151453 >>>>> >>>>> The CL also adds two metrics so that we can get usecounter of the >>>>> cases that the change affects: >>>>> - CSSPseudoHasContainsMixOfValidAndInvalid : ':has(a, :foo)' >>>>> - CSSPseudoIsWhereContainsMixOfValidAndInvalid : ':is(a, :foo)', >>>>> ':where(a, :foo)' >>>>> >>>>> I'll try to merge the CL to 110 branch after it landed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> > > -- > Rune Lillesveen > > -- 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/CAL5BFfVruS-25V_eUJFUQ%3D%2BuojRyumyExkL9YzEKLfTj4qHC1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
