Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Other Spec Review: JS Self-Profiling Markers (ProfilerSample.marker) (Issue #1251)

monica-ch left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1251)

Thanks @bkardell! Updates on all three points:

**Origin Trial plan & intent.** The Intent to Experiment is approved on blink-dev, and the Chromium Origin Trial is approved to run **M153 → M161**. Tracking links:
- ChromeStatus: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5201297767792640
- Intent to Experiment (approved): https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a72681c.c91ea2f1.3ad85a.01ad.GAE%40google.com
- Implementation bug: https://crbug.com/40800459
- Spec PR under review: https://github.com/WICG/js-self-profiling/pull/89

The trial gathers field data from partner developers (Excel Online, Datadog) on the marker vocabulary and the cross-origin-isolation gating before we finalize the design.

**On standards positions for Mozilla and WebKit.** Good prompt — here's the accurate state:

- There *is* a Mozilla standards-position request on the **base** JS Self-Profiling API ([mozilla/standards-positions#477](https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/477)), filed alongside the original TAG review (#366). It's **still open and unresolved** — a long security-focused thread (with input from @mstange for Mozilla and @rniwa from WebKit). There is **no** separate WebKit position issue, and **neither engine has implemented the base API**.

- This markers proposal is a **one-field extension** (`marker` on `ProfilerSample`) on top of that base API. Given the parent position is still unresolved and the API is Chromium-only today, filing a fresh position on the extension right now would likely just fork the same unresolved base-API security discussion rather than move it forward.

- The one genuinely new design point — isolation-based gating of the sensitive markers (`script`/`gc`/`paint`) — is still under active discussion ([WICG/js-self-profiling#61](https://github.com/WICG/js-self-profiling/issues/61)) and is exactly what the Origin Trial is meant to validate. My inclination is to file the markers-specific WebKit/Mozilla positions **once that gating stabilizes after the OT**, so their review is against final semantics. **Does that sequencing work for TAG, or would you prefer we file now** and consolidate with the existing base-API discussion?

We'd welcome TAG feedback before or early in the trial — the marker set and gating are still open for iteration as part of standardization.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1251#issuecomment-5285110702
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1251/5285110702@github.com>