Do we need an intent for a WebDriver feature ?

Skip to first unread message

Javier Fernandez

Sep 6, 2022, 8:45:50 AMSep 6

I'm trying to move forward a proposal to implement a new WebDriver
extension command to allow testing automation for the Custom Handlers
API (eg, registerProtocolHandler).

I've filed a new CromeStatus entry [1] to briefly describe the feature.

As far as I know, WebDriver extension command use to be defined in the
spec describing the feature that would need such command. Some examples:


The problem is that in this case, the change should be applied in the
HTML spec, which requires support from at least 2 implementers. I've
filed an standard-position [2]  request for Mozilla, which I guess it'd
be enough for them. Apple doesn't implement the registerProtocolHandler,
so I doubt they will show interest at all.

Regarding Chrome, I guess I could submit an
intent-to-prototype-and-ship, but I haven't seen any request like that
for a WebDriver related feature.

I've got an early prototype of the feature in a CL [3]; I guess that if
it's gets the approval of the reviewers could be seen as an implementors
interest. However, it's not the first time I've got LGTMs and then the
spec reviewers rejected to accept the changes.

What would be the most appropriated to show Chrome's interest on this
feature ?

Thanks for your consideration



Yoav Weiss

Sep 6, 2022, 9:10:53 AMSep 6
to Javier Fernandez, blink-api-owners-discuss
From my perspective, since WebDriver is not a web exposed feature, the various risks we evaluate features against don't really apply. So I don't think you need to file an intent to ship.
Maybe a PSA would be in order to let folks know that this is a testing feature that we're planning to ship?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To view this discussion on the web visit
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages