#697: Review Request for adding video- prefixed media features

Visit on Github.

Opened Dec 9, 2021

Braw mornin' TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of adding video- prefixed media features.

video- prefixed media features give webpages the ability to disambiguate media queries for devices which have different display characteristics for video and non-video web content.

Further details:

  • I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
  • Relevant time constraints or deadlines: None
  • The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: CSSWG
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): CSSWG
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: None (yet?)
  • This work is being funded by: Implementation by Google

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as: 💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify willcassella

Discussions

Comment by @torgo Mar 23, 2022 (See Github)

Hi folks - we are having a look at this at our face-to-face this week. One thing that became clear is that the explainer jumps right into a discussion of the technology without articulating the end-user need or the developer need. Can you please add some intro to the explainer that expands on these points a bit? We did see the motivation section - but we're talking about documenting what authors actually want to accomplish and in service of what improvement to the end-user experience? That would not only help us with our review but also help to explain this technology going forward when documented for developers. Thanks! ✨

Discussed Jun 1, 2022 (See Github)

Dan: we asked for an update to their explainer, nothing since. Lea do you know anything more?

Lea: I don't think so. Should we ping them again?

we review their explainer in current form

Dan: it is in the CSS working group.

Amy: would very slightly increase the fingerprinting... Also looking at their security & privacy review - Sam W points out that media queries level 5 doesn't have a security & privacy review...

Hi folks - it looks like our request for some additional information in the explainer hasn't been actioned.  We've gone ahead and reviewed with the information provided.  It looks to us like this is OK.  We're slightly concerned about the additional fingerprinting surface area. We also note the lack of Security & Privacy considerations sections in the Media Queries spec - is this likely to be added in the near future?  Also it seems like this review was filed [as an afterthought](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/OpUsOWnnN6c/m/QFfsQwmUDAAJ) rather than as a legitimate request for wide review.

Sangwhan: introduces extra entropy.

Dan: satisfied with concerns?

Sangwhan: guess it has an intent to implement

Lea: wouldn't say the user needs are completely obvious. I don't think we have a problem with the feature, but they haven't responded to us after months.

Amy: what does the CSS WG think?

Sangwhan: looks like they asked for TAG review after they shipped it. This is an antipattern.

Dan: [closes with concerns]

Comment by @torgo Jun 28, 2022 (See Github)

Hi folks - it looks like our request for some additional information in the explainer hasn't been actioned. We've gone ahead and reviewed with the information provided. It looks to us like this is OK. We're slightly concerned about the additional fingerprinting surface area. We also note the lack of Security & Privacy considerations sections in the Media Queries spec - is this likely to be added in the near future? Also it seems like this review was filed as an afterthought rather than as a legitimate request for wide review.