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

Removed alternations to the existing implementations and GREASE. #174

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jwrosewell
Copy link

@jwrosewell jwrosewell commented Dec 18, 2020

Alterations to other standards are not matters for this standards document.

GREASE has been removed because it serves no purpose other than to make the web developers role harder when consuming the information. It also adds bloat to the HTTP header values that should be avoided in the interests of efficiency. During the TPAC F2F session on this proposal if was acknowledged that most developers who are using regular expression solutions will continue to do so and that GREASE will serve no benefit. Better therefore to focus on making information that is clear, as short as possible and easy to consume for the majority of developers.

Relates to issues 125, 127, 156, 147, 146 and 152.


💥 Error: 400 Bad Request 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Mar 5, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 CSS Spec Preprocessor - CSS Spec Preprocessor is the web service used to build Bikeshed specs.

🔗 Related URL

Error running preprocessor, returned code: 2.
WARNING: The following locally-defined biblio entries are unused and can be removed:
  * i-d.ietf-tls-grease
  * rossi2015
FATAL ERROR: Couldn't find target document section grease:
[[#grease]]
 ✘  Did not generate, due to fatal errors

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

…t. These are not matters for a standards document.
@yoavweiss yoavweiss changed the base branch from master to main March 5, 2021 21:43
@miketaylr
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the PR (and the corresponding issue), but for now we think GREASE is an improvement on the status quo. But we can keep #127 open for further discussion.

@miketaylr miketaylr closed this Sep 10, 2021
@jwrosewell
Copy link
Author

Can you point to research from the UACH trial to support closing this? My experience from the trial is that GREASE adds complexity making the migration to UACH harder for developers.

@miketaylr
Copy link
Collaborator

If we determine that GREASE is in fact not good for the ecosystem, we can open a new PR. #127 is still open for folks to present their feedback.

@jwrosewell
Copy link
Author

Google have published a timeline that contraindicates proposed commitments made to the UK CMA. That commitment made it clear that all Privacy Sandbox changes would be subject to UK CMA consultation.

Therefore can you please clarify who the "we" is that you refer to in relation to your previous comment? Is "we" Google operating unilaterally? Is "we" Google and the UK CMA? Or is "we" the W3C community? Or is "we" some other definition?

In any case you have now widely communicated to the entire ecosystem that UACH will be implemented. Issue 176 from March 2021 advised that the creation of a Working Group would be reassessed at some future date. There is significant interest in this change and you appear confident many of the issues have been addressed. Can we now move this work from WICG to a Working Group so that the W3C Process can apply?

cc @wseltzer @plehegar

@miketaylr
Copy link
Collaborator

We means the people collectively working to edit the spec and the folks providing feedback, whether part of the W3C community or not. But "W3C community" is probably a good definition?

you appear confident many of the issues have been addressed

I disagree that we're there today (not sure how you draw the conclusion that I'm confident issues have been addressed). But when we get there we will follow the process and propose moving the work to a WG.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

In any case you have now widely communicated to the entire ecosystem that UACH will be implemented. Issue 176 from March 2021 advised that the creation of a Working Group would be reassessed at some future date. There is significant interest in this change and you appear confident many of the issues have been addressed. Can we now move this work from WICG to a Working Group so that the W3C Process can apply?

Note that the proposed charter for the Web Applications Working Group contains this specification, under "Tentative Deliverables". The timing of the move depends on "the WICG progress, including interest from multiple implementers".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants