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

Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences #767

Closed
michaelwasserman opened this issue Aug 31, 2022 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
Missing: Multi-stakeholder support Lack of multi-stakeholder support Resolution: satisfied with concerns The TAG is satisfied with this work overall but requires changes Review type: Already shipped Already shipped in at least one browser Review type: CG early review An early review of general direction from a Community Group Venue: Second Screen WG

Comments

@michaelwasserman
Copy link

Wotcher TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences.

This proposal introduces a Multi-Screen Window Placement API enhancement that would allow web applications to initiate a multi-screen experience from a single user activation.

Further details:

  • [✓] I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
  • The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future): Second Screen WG
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known): Second Screen WG
  • Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design: Mozilla standards position issue and Prior TAG review request
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: Mozilla security considerations (see above), TAG request for a new design review (see above)
  • This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that...

I appreciate your time reviewing this proposal; thank you!

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):
💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify @michaelwasserman

@michaelwasserman
Copy link
Author

If it is helpful, the high-level Explainer changes since my earlier review request are:

@plinss plinss self-assigned this Sep 29, 2022
@torgo torgo assigned atanassov and plinss and unassigned plinss Sep 29, 2022
@maxpassion maxpassion assigned maxpassion and unassigned plinss Sep 29, 2022
@torgo torgo added this to the 2022-10-10-week milestone Sep 29, 2022
@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Oct 19, 2022

Hi @michaelwasserman the chrome status for this says shipped in 104. Does that mean it's shipping or is it behind a flag? Also in what sense is the review request an early review? We've been a little slow on the uptake on this one - and sorry for that - but can you give us an update on the current status, also with regard to additional stakeholders / engines that are supporting?

@torgo torgo added Review type: Already shipped Already shipped in at least one browser Missing: Multi-stakeholder support Lack of multi-stakeholder support labels Oct 19, 2022
@michaelwasserman
Copy link
Author

This is available in Chrome without a flag since 104. A partner requested this functionality when integrating the Multi-Screen Window Placement API in their web application. We have not yet received explicit signals from any other engines. Should I have requested a "Specification review" rather than an "Early design review"?

I would still greatly appreciate TAG feedback, and especially guidance for generalizing the design to support initiating a broader set of multi-display web application experiences. Web application developers have continued to express strong interest in this space via w3c/window-management#98, w3c/window-management#92, w3c/window-management#74, and w3c/window-management#7.

@plinss plinss changed the title Early Design Review of Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences Multi-Screen Window Placement on the Web - Initiating Multi-Screen Experiences Nov 28, 2022
@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Nov 28, 2022

Hi @michaelwasserman yes probably it would have been better to request a spec review for something this far along in the process. We're concerned about the lack of multi-stakeholder support or signals thereof. We note extensive discussion on the security considerations in mozilla/standards-positions #636 and #542 which don't seem to have come to resolution yet. Any update on this or info on other implementers supporting / working on this? Lack of feature detection is also concerning and goes against our design principle on detectability.

@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Feb 28, 2023

Hi @michaelwasserman has there been any update you can share? Thanks!

@michaelwasserman
Copy link
Author

Hi @torgo, thanks for your consideration and persistence, I apologize for my delayed reply.

  1. Regarding Mozilla standards positions (#636 and #542): We held promising discussions in webscreens 2022 Q2 and TPAC 2022 meetings. I also merged #100 and replied with security consideration clarifications and new mitigation ideas. We are still awaiting a response.

  2. Regarding WebKit's standards positions: We are awaiting responses on #117 and older webkit-dev requests (original api and this enhancement), and other forms of outreach have not yet been fruitful.

  3. There is a spec issue for feature-detection, which deserves exploration and discussion.

Here are some AIs I can take upon myself, WDYT?

  • Open a new TAG spec review request (for the entire spec) as part of our wide review effort.
  • Ping and update standards-positions issues and invite discussion before/during Second Screen WG/CG - 2023 Q1 virtual meeting #7
  • Continue refining the spec’s security considerations section and feature-detection issue

@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented Mar 23, 2023

Hi @michaelwasserman Based on your comments it looks like the issues TAG has raised are being considered. On this basis we’re happy to close this review as “satisfied with concerns” - the concerns being the lack of multi-stakeholder support.

Regarding opening up a new review request for the entire spec, I think we already had some significant discussion in issue 602. I think it may be appropriate to open up a new issue as part of wide review when the spec goes to CR.

@torgo torgo closed this as completed Mar 23, 2023
@torgo torgo removed this from the 2023-03-27-week milestone Mar 23, 2023
@torgo torgo added Missing: Multi-stakeholder support Lack of multi-stakeholder support Resolution: satisfied with concerns The TAG is satisfied with this work overall but requires changes and removed Missing: Multi-stakeholder support Lack of multi-stakeholder support labels Mar 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Missing: Multi-stakeholder support Lack of multi-stakeholder support Resolution: satisfied with concerns The TAG is satisfied with this work overall but requires changes Review type: Already shipped Already shipped in at least one browser Review type: CG early review An early review of general direction from a Community Group Venue: Second Screen WG
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants