Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request for position: close watchers #604

Closed
domenic opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

Request for position: close watchers #604

domenic opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
position: positive venue: W3C CG Specifications in W3C Community Groups (e.g., WICG, Privacy CG) venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream

Comments

@domenic
Copy link
Contributor

domenic commented Dec 14, 2021

Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification

Other information

We've been prototyping this API over in Chromium for some time. It's a small offshoot of the work in #543 on new history APIs generally. The original intent was to make it so that developers don't have to abuse the history API to detect Android back button presses, and this is still probably the largest impact. We've also found that it has some significant benefits in terms of smoothing over platform differences, since it "just works" no matter if you're using a keyboard, Android software back button, Android swipe gestures, or assistive tech gestures.

Previous feedback from @annevk was that we should be sure to integrate with existing primitives such as fullscreen and <dialog>. We took that to heart and I'm pretty happy with how the result turned out; the updates to other specs now put them on a shared foundation that's pretty nice and much more rigorous than previous prose, IMO.

@annevk annevk added venue: W3C CG Specifications in W3C Community Groups (e.g., WICG, Privacy CG) venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream labels Feb 9, 2022
@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Feb 9, 2022

@smaug---- and I had a brief discussion about this with @domenic. We had some minor suggestions, but overall this design looks reasonable to us. I suggest we mark it as worth prototyping. As it's quite small I'm not sure it warrants a dashboard entry. If anyone has feedback on that or it being worth prototyping, now would be a good time to say something.

(Marking as WHATWG as well because the aim is to upstream this into HTML.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
position: positive venue: W3C CG Specifications in W3C Community Groups (e.g., WICG, Privacy CG) venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants