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)
No
This can be tested by calling 'CSS.supports(<selector>)' in the DevTools Console window.
Yes
109
The issue is resolved and closed
: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7280
Contact emails
bl...@igalia.com
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)
Blink component
Blink
TAG review
TAG review status
Not applicable
Can you expand on why you think a TAG review is not needed here?
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
Gecko: Shipped/Shipping https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248
WebKit: Positive
Web developers: Positive
thanks,
Mike
Hi Byungwoo,
On 9/23/22 4:34 AM, Byungwoo Lee wrote:
Contact emails
bl...@igalia.com
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)
Blink component
Blink
TAG review
TAG review status
Not applicable
Can you expand on why you think a TAG review is not needed here?
Can you please link to these signals?
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
Gecko: Shipped/Shipping https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248
WebKit: Positive
Web developers: Positive
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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
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.
Hello Yoav and Mike,
Thanks for the feedback! I replied inline.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 3:15 PM Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Byungwoo,
On 9/23/22 4:34 AM, Byungwoo Lee wrote:
Contact emails
bl...@igalia.com
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?
Blink 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
- 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'?
Can you please link to these signals?
Risks
Interoperability and Compatibility
Gecko: Shipped/Shipping https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789248
WebKit: Positive
Web developers: Positive
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
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 <mike...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Byungwoo,
On 9/23/22 4:34 AM, Byungwoo Lee wrote:
Contact emails
bl...@igalia.com
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?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:25 PM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> 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 <mike...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Byungwoo,
On 9/23/22 4:34 AM, Byungwoo Lee wrote:
Contact emails
bl...@igalia.com
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.
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.
I'll share the stats when it released.
Thanks!
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?
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)
- There are 2 sub cases:- URLs using WordPress yootheme [1]- URLs using jQuery `has()` [2]
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()`).
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].
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.
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
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()`).
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].
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.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:59 PM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> 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?
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 in M110 without a feature flag nor an intent. How confident are we that this is safe?
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?
Thanks! I replied again. :)2023년 1월 6일 금요일 오후 7시 50분 43초 UTC+9에 yoav...@chromium.org님이 작성:On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:59 PM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> 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 %.
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 in M110 without a feature flag nor an intent. How confident are we that this is safe?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-12357247302. 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?
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()`).
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].
thanks! :)On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:42 AM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> 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.
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: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.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:53 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote:thanks! :)On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 6:42 AM Byungwoo Lee <bl...@igalia.com> 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: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 - can you help make that happen?
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?
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.