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

navigateEvent.sourceElement #867

Closed
1 task done
natechapin opened this issue Jun 22, 2023 · 7 comments
Closed
1 task done

navigateEvent.sourceElement #867

natechapin opened this issue Jun 22, 2023 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
Missing: explainer Resolution: decline The TAG declines to review this work. We don't think our review would add much. We don't object. Review type: CG early review An early review of general direction from a Community Group Venue: WICG

Comments

@natechapin
Copy link

こんにちは TAG-さん!

I'm requesting a TAG review of navigateEvent.sourceElement.

This is a small extension of the navigation API, which was previously reviewed in #605 and #717. The navigateEvent exposes many details about a navigation that has just begun, and we wish to add a sourceElement attribute: the Element that initiated the navigation (if any).

Further details:

  • I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
  • The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future): WICG
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known): WHATWG
  • Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design: Event property to access the element who triggered a navigation WICG/navigation-api#225
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: None yet. The main point of debate has been the name. I am happy to consider alternatives to sourceElement.
  • This work is being funded by: Google

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [@natechapin, @domenic]

@natechapin natechapin added Progress: untriaged Review type: CG early review An early review of general direction from a Community Group labels Jun 22, 2023
@letitz
Copy link

letitz commented Jul 7, 2023

Hi there @natechapin, @domenic, a quick request for clarification:

  • Security and Privacy self-review²: None - this shouldn't expose anything that isn't already available

This is because the navigation events are always from same-origin sources, so the website could have tracked the source element itself if it so desired?

@natechapin
Copy link
Author

Hi there @natechapin, @domenic, a quick request for clarification:

  • Security and Privacy self-review²: None - this shouldn't expose anything that isn't already available

This is because the navigation events are always from same-origin sources, so the website could have tracked the source element itself if it so desired?

Correct!

@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Jul 19, 2023

Hi - Can you please author an explainer for this so that we can conduct the review? Thanks! ✨

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Jul 19, 2023

What is wrong with the explainer linked in the OP? (Notice this is a single added property in a larger spec, so it's being done as an update to that spec's explainer.)

@LeaVerou
Copy link
Member

LeaVerou commented Jul 19, 2023

What is wrong with the explainer linked in the OP? (Notice this is a single added property in a larger spec, so it's being done as an update to that spec's explainer.)

You mean this? It’s missing nearly all the sections an explainer needs, described here. If it's too small a feature to meaningfully have an explainer, it may be too small to need TAG review.

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Jul 20, 2023

That explainer (full version at https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/blob/b0286752a0a5a1babd782e4bc8e68e696538fd10/README.md) does have all the sections. It's true this addition is a small part of the overall navigation API. Perhaps it is too small to need TAG review; if that's the TAG's judgment, then please feel free to close :).

@torgo torgo added this to the 2023-12-18-week milestone Dec 17, 2023
@torgo torgo added Progress: propose closing we think it should be closed but are waiting on some feedback or consensus Resolution: decline The TAG declines to review this work. We don't think our review would add much. We don't object. and removed Progress: propose closing we think it should be closed but are waiting on some feedback or consensus labels Dec 18, 2023
@torgo torgo removed this from the 2023-12-18-week milestone Dec 20, 2023
@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Dec 20, 2023

As agreed on today's call. We agree it's too small to require a TAG review so we're going to close.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Missing: explainer Resolution: decline The TAG declines to review this work. We don't think our review would add much. We don't object. Review type: CG early review An early review of general direction from a Community Group Venue: WICG
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants