Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

[Ajay Rahatekar]

Contact emails

mas...@chromium.org

Explainer

None

Specification

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001

Summary

The CSSWG resolved to rename the `inset-area` property to `position-area`. See the CSSWG discussion here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001. The new property name, `position-area`, as a synonym for `inset-area` shipped via https://chromestatus.com/feature/6567965055778816. This entry is for deprecation and removal of the `inset-area` property.

Blink component

Blink>CSS

Motivation

With the CSSWG resolution on renaming the property to `position-area`, this deprecation will clean up the implementation in Chromium for a standards compliant feature.

Initial public proposal

None

Search tags

anchor positioning

TAG review

None

TAG review status

Not applicable

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

None

Gecko: No signal

WebKit: No signal

Web developers: No signals

Other signals:

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

None

Debuggability

None

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?

No

Flag name on chrome://flags

None

Finch feature name

None

Non-finch justification

None

Requires code in //chrome?

False

Tracking bug

https://crbug.com/352360007

Estimated milestones

Shipping on desktop	131
DevTrial on desktop	129

Shipping on Android	131
DevTrial on Android	129

Shipping on WebView

131

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5944933945704448?gate=6046273227718656

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.

[Vladimir Levin]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:10 PM 'Ajay Rahatekar' via blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org> wrote:

Contact emails

mas...@chromium.org

Explainer

None

Specification

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001

Summary

The CSSWG resolved to rename the `inset-area` property to `position-area`. See the CSSWG discussion here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001. The new property name, `position-area`, as a synonym for `inset-area` shipped via https://chromestatus.com/feature/6567965055778816. This entry is for deprecation and removal of the `inset-area` property.

Blink component

Blink>CSS

Motivation

With the CSSWG resolution on renaming the property to `position-area`, this deprecation will clean up the implementation in Chromium for a standards compliant feature.

Initial public proposal

None

Search tags

anchor positioning

TAG review

None

TAG review status

Not applicable

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

None

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 before then, right?

Thanks,

Vlad

 

--
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/CAHB%2BDAhbysWX2rT2QGMiv%3D2XvxYD9pzKTy894OFP81RNoPHKMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mason Freed]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> 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 before then, right?

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, but not enough time for usage of `inset-area` to really pick up.

Thanks,

Mason

[Vladimir Levin]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM Mason Freed <mas...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> 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 before then, right?

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, but not enough time for usage of `inset-area` to really pick up.

That sounds like a good plan. I also assume that you would reach out to any properties that you know are using insert-area to let them know of this change, especially if you don't see usage dropping by M131.

LGTM1 for deprecating `insert-area` in M129 and removing in M131

Thanks,

Vlad

[Chris Harrelson]

LGTM2

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2NMK74T5pOH4V5H-R%2BmfRYs5NnNemYah%3Dbp%3DrcGNrKkFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Taylor]

LGTM3

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw_AQmqASTso%3D4Osv%2B5ee41%2BxTCq_Scmc_BKdOy7EQLg3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mason Freed]

Thank you all!

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:51 AM Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> 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, but not enough time for usage of `inset-area` to really pick up.

That sounds like a good plan. I also assume that you would reach out to any properties that you know are using insert-area to let them know of this change, especially if you don't see usage dropping by M131.

Yes, definitely. We'll re-evaluate the M131 removal closer to the date, and see if outreach is warranted.

Thanks,

Mason