Add BCD for Topics API #20457
Add BCD for Topics API #20457
Conversation
|
This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The specification for these features doesn't have a 'good' standing in browser-specs. It is marked as 'pending'. Therefore we can't mark this as standard_track: true and we won't accept the specification URL.
(fwiw, it is also not accepted in packages like webref/idl which is used on MDN for inheritance data etc)
@Elchi3 OK, updated. I appreciate the error messaging and guidance on this — super helpful. My question is — how should I represent the unofficial proposal on the content page Specification sections? Is there any guidance on this? I was thinking something like the note at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/buildID#specifications, but linking to the proposal URL, maybe something like
? (In future I will push back on documenting things that haven't got a "real" spec yet, but given this one is now documented...) |
Do you have more sources of this really shipping by default in 115? Given this specification is not in webref/idl, the BCD collector doesn't have auto-generated tests for it, so I can't easily tell... Lately many of your PRs claimed Chrome 115 and then it was actually 117 or 118 per our collector results. (I don't know if this API is actually stable enough to add it, we usually only submit additions to BCD if they have one shipping engine and standard_track: true. This is to avoid too much churn for APIs that are being developed still). |
That sounds good to me. We probably ought to talk about how to represent this better and consistently. Maybe even also include standards positions from other engines, but this question ought to be discussed in mdn/content, I think.
Yes, that would be good, I think. Otherwise we end up redoing a lot of docs (see Sanitizer API). |
@Elchi3 I tend to look at the ChromeStatus pages and then ask the engineers to validate that data or give me better data. Unfortunately, quite a lot of the 115 stuff bounced into 117 or later; it was worse recently than it had previously been. I will ask the engineers for an update on this one, both on the standardization status and on the Chrome version. The Chrome roadmap reckons it was definitely released in Chrome 115, but I'll check it. |
@Elchi3 OK, so the Chrome engineering team has verified that this API was definitely shipped in Chrome 115. |
|
From the conversation in Slack I believe you're still checking the standardization status here, so I'm setting this to draft. Please set to ready once you have answers and I can re-review and merge. |
@Elchi3 I've not received any answers that show a clear path forward on the standardization of this API, so I'm going to suggest that we go ahead and merge as-is, and then return to it later and add the I've made the corresponding change in the docs work for this, which replaces the specification macros with the note we discussed above: see mdn/content@5235cc5. |
* Add BCD for Topics API * Fix ordering error * remove invalid spec_urls and set corresponding standard_track settings to false --------- Co-authored-by: Florian Scholz <fs@florianscholz.com>
Summary
The Topics API is an integral part of Google's privacy sandbox technologies. Many parts of this set are being made available by default in Chrome 115 (depending on a gradual ramp-up to 100% of userbase over the 115 release period).
This PR provides BCD for the Topics API and its related HTTP headers and other features.
See my research document for more details of exactly what changes are expected in the PR.
Test results and supporting details
Related issues