FWIW, I'd definitely support attempting some simplification in this area, assuming some buy-in from other vendors to experiment. This is the usage data we have: https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/143 https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/144 https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/145 https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/146 https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/147 https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/148 However, I would not assume that this is a reliable indication of the risk. One would have to take a look at usage in the wild to get a better idea about the risk of removing or changing the timing of the events. Is there an issue tracking this in crbug.com? On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:33 PM Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com> > wrote: > > Sure. Let me talk to Elliott next week because I'm not familiar with his > > plan that Anne is referring to. > > > > Could we discuss this at TPAC? (Will there be a quorum of implementers?) > > Yeah, if that helps we could. > > I think there's at least three things we can do in parallel: > > * Olli's suggestion that other browsers start signaling deprecation > more aggressively too in the hopes that the numbers go down a bit > more. > * We could remove some of the events that are not cross-browser or are > used less than 0.03%. > * We can investigate Elliott's plan of dispatching them using custom > element reactions timing. > > > I discussed this with some folks recently. I think we should pursue > removing all of the events that are not widely used, and attempt to fire > the events that are at CEReactions timing. > > - E >
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 16:32:38 UTC