Auto-expanding details elements

[josepharhar]

Ya ya yawm TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Auto-expanding details elements.

Summary: Today, closed details elements aren't searchable by find-in-page or ScrollToTextFragment, and if a user wants to search in them with find-in-page they would have to manually open every details element in the page before beginning their search. This feature makes closed details elements searchable and automatically expands them when the browser tries to scroll to content inside of them for find-in-page, ScrollToTextFragment, and element fragment navigation.

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/WICG/display-locking/blob/main/explainers/auto-expanding-details-explainer.md
• Specification URL:
  • https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6466
  • https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#interaction-with-details
• Tests:
  • Auto-expanding details with element fragment navigation is tested here: https://wpt.fyi/results/html/semantics/interactive-elements/the-details-element/auto-expand-details-element-fragment.html
  • I still need to add ScrollToTextFragment tests. ScrollToTextFragment tests do exist in WPT.
  • find-in-page can't be tested in WPT, but I may spec window.find and support it for this feature in the future just to make this WPT testable.
• Security and Privacy self-review²: https://github.com/WICG/display-locking/blob/main/privacy-assessments/auto-expanding-details-privacy.md
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Joey Arhar @josepharhar Google. Author, champion of this feature
  • Vladimir Levin @vmpstr Google
  • Emilio @emilio Mozilla. Reviewed the HTML spec for this feature.
• Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Google
• Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification:
  • A very similar feature was discussed in this tag review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/511
  • This feature has been added to the HTML spec in this PR: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6466
• External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://chromestatus.com/feature/5032469667512320

Further details:

• [x] 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: WICG
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): WHATWG
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: none
• This work is being funded by: Google

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 [github usernames]

[josepharhar]

There is some useful discussion here: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/578

[torgo]

Hi @josepharhar. Regarding the security & privacy questionnaire - you've noted a privacy venerability and a potential mitigation. (Great!) Is this documented anywhere in the spec itself? We are generally supportive - we just want to bottom out the potential privacy issue that you've documented. Also adding privacy-tracker label to bring it to the attention of Privacy Interest Group.

[josepharhar]

you've noted a privacy venerability and a potential mitigation. (Great!) Is this documented anywhere in the spec itself?

No, I didn't include this in the spec

[slightlyoff]

hey @josepharhar, per the Intent thread, it'd be great to see a non-normative note in the spec flagging that this is a potential concern, perhaps in your privacy and security considerations section?

Thanks.

[josepharhar]

hey @josepharhar, per the Intent thread, it'd be great to see a non-normative note in the spec flagging that this is a potential concern, perhaps in your privacy and security considerations section?

I opened a PR to add a non-normative note here: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7229

[torgo]

Thanks @josepharhar and @slightlyoff - much appreciated. I think on that basis we're happy to close the review. We discussed this last week and we have no objections. Thanks for flying TAG.