#1066: 'focus-without-user-activation' permissions policy

Visit on Github.

Opened Mar 7, 2025

こんにちは TAG-さん!

I'm requesting a TAG review of a new permissions policy named 'focus-without-user-activation'.

The focus-without-user-activation permissions policy help controls the use of automated focus in a main frame or <iframe>. The proposed permissions policy can be used to limit the use of automatic focus. Essentially, when the policy is disabled in a document, scripted and automatic focus will only work if the focus has been initialized through user activation. This essentially means that autofocus will be disabled (unless a new element is inserted, with autofocus, as a result of user gesture). The scripted focus will also only work if it has started with user gesture or initiated from current frame's parent.

Further details:

  • I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
  • Previous early design review, if any: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/####
  • Relevant time constraints or deadlines:
  • The group where the work on this specification is currently being done:
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if different from the current group):
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification:
  • This work is being funded by:

Discussions

Log in to see TAG-private discussions.

Discussed Apr 28, 2025 (See Github)

Matthew: DanC has clarified that it didn't actually ship. Moz position is unknown. Webkit is supportive. Sounds good. They didn't list alternatives considered. It seems like this a good idea.

Jeffrey: wait to close?

DanC: I know that they were trying to do this another way .. and were informed of the existence of this approach. searches for that. Was at TPAC last year...

Jeffrey: Matthew can you draft a comment .. [and adapt based on what DanC comes up with.]

Discussed Jul 21, 2025 (See Github)

Matthew: They updated the explainer as we asked; all seems comprehensive and reasonable; can we close satisfied?

Dan: I am happy with this approach (I had some involvement in it too).

Matthew to close as satisfied

Comment by @matatk Jul 23, 2025 (See Github)

Hi @ffiori. Thanks for your updates to the explainer; they're helpful, and we continue to be happy with the direction the work has taken, so will close this review now. Thanks again for your review request, and to @dandclark for his input on this one.