Design Review #697

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

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.

Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): Explainer for video- prefixed media features
Specification URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-5/#video-prefixed-features
Tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/mediaqueries/dynamic-range.html
Security and Privacy self-review²: https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/19
GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues
Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
- Dean Jackson - Apple, spec editor
- Florian Rivoal - Spec editor
- Tab Atkins Jr - Google, spec editor
- Chris Cunningham (chcunningham) - Google, spec
- Will Cassella (willcassella) - Google, implementor in Chromium
Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Google, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, HBBTV
Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification:
External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): Not yet created

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

2022-06-27

Minutes

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]