navigateEvent.sourceElement

[natechapin]

こんにちは TAG-さん!

I'm requesting a TAG review of navigateEvent.sourceElement.

This is a small extension of the navigation API, which was previously reviewed in https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/605 and https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/717. The navigateEvent exposes many details about a navigation that has just begun, and we wish to add a sourceElement attribute: the Element that initiated the navigation (if any).

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/pull/264
• User research: Requested and discussed on our issue tracker: https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/issues/225
• Security and Privacy self-review²: None - this shouldn't expose anything that isn't already available
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Nate Chapin (@natechapin), Google
  • Domenic Denicola (@domenic), Google
• Organization/project driving the design: Google
• External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): None yet.

Further details:

• [x] 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): WICG
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known): WHATWG
• Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design: https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/issues/225
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: None yet. The main point of debate has been the name. I am happy to consider alternatives to sourceElement.
• 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 [@natechapin, @domenic]

[letitz]

Hi there @natechapin, @domenic, a quick request for clarification:

• Security and Privacy self-review²: None - this shouldn't expose anything that isn't already available

This is because the navigation events are always from same-origin sources, so the website could have tracked the source element itself if it so desired?

[natechapin]

Hi there @natechapin, @domenic, a quick request for clarification:

• Security and Privacy self-review²: None - this shouldn't expose anything that isn't already available

This is because the navigation events are always from same-origin sources, so the website could have tracked the source element itself if it so desired?

Correct!

[torgo]

Hi - Can you please author an explainer for this so that we can conduct the review? Thanks! ✨

[domenic]

What is wrong with the explainer linked in the OP? (Notice this is a single added property in a larger spec, so it's being done as an update to that spec's explainer.)

[LeaVerou]

What is wrong with the explainer linked in the OP? (Notice this is a single added property in a larger spec, so it's being done as an update to that spec's explainer.)

You mean this? It’s missing nearly all the sections an explainer needs, described here. If it's too small a feature to meaningfully have an explainer, it may be too small to need TAG review.

[domenic]

That explainer (full version at https://github.com/WICG/navigation-api/blob/b0286752a0a5a1babd782e4bc8e68e696538fd10/README.md) does have all the sections. It's true this addition is a small part of the overall navigation API. Perhaps it is too small to need TAG review; if that's the TAG's judgment, then please feel free to close :).

[torgo]

As agreed on today's call. We agree it's too small to require a TAG review so we're going to close.