Re: Call for Consensus: Incubations adoption

Google supports isInputPending. The implementation in Chromium (by a
Facebook engineer) is proceeding and is almost complete. We've also seen
excellent performance impact from experimental-adoption sites: the feature
has been demonstrated to improve responsiveness without negative
performance impact on other metrics.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CFC) to adopt the incubations listed below
> as WG Working Drafts.
>
> As part of the process of preparing for rechartering
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K6l5JlEaUq9eSBNI9HGoLfeN9hpXLHlHPRW-WTjtBlU/edit#bookmark=id.zbjoasva17nm>,
> I looked into relevant WICG incubations and found several that I believe
> are mature enough to be adopted by the WG.
>
> Largest Contentful Paint
> <https://wicg.github.io/largest-contentful-paint/>, Layout Instability
> <https://wicg.github.io/layout-instability/>, Element Timing
> <https://wicg.github.io/element-timing/>, Event Timing
> <https://wicg.github.io/event-timing/> and IsInputPending
> <https://wicg.github.io/is-input-pending/> were all thoroughly discussed
> on the group's calls and meetings, and I believe are all in good shape to
> be adopted as Working Drafts.
> I'd like to seek the group's member consensus on adopting them.
>
> Voting is gathered on the following issues:
> Event Timing #94 <https://github.com/WICG/event-timing/issues/94>, Element
> Timing #48 <https://github.com/WICG/element-timing/issues/48>, Largest
> Contentful Paint #57
> <https://github.com/WICG/largest-contentful-paint/issues/57>, IsInputPending
> #32 <https://github.com/WICG/is-input-pending/issues/32>, Layout
> Instability #68 <https://github.com/WICG/layout-instability/issues/68>.
>
>
> Do Google & Mozilla support any of these proposals? FWIW, we (Apple’s
> WebKit team) do not necessarily support any of them, and we’re pretty much
> against layout instability (as in we wouldn’t consider implementing it at
> all; for other specifications we haven’t made up our minds yet). We’d like
> to know before making our votes.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
>