WebDriver BiDi

[mathiasbynens]

こんにちは TAG-さん!

I'm requesting a TAG review of WebDriver BiDi.

WebDriver BiDi is a bidirectional protocol for browser automation, building on and extending the “classic” WebDriver protocol.

• Explainer: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/blob/master/explainer.md
• Specification URL: https://w3c.github.io/webdriver-bidi/
• Tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/webdriver/tests/bidi
• Security and Privacy self-review: WebDriver BiDi is not a Web-exposed feature, but is instead a separate protocol that requires explicit opt-in on the user’s local system. The usual S&P review doesn’t apply here.
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi
• Primary contacts:
  • David Burns (@AutomatedTester), BrowserStack
  • James Graham (@jgraham), Mozilla
  • Mathias Bynens (@mathiasbynens), Google
  • Philip Jägenstedt (@foolip), Google
  • Sam Sneddon (@gsnedders), Apple
• Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: Browser Testing and Tools Working Group
• Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues
• External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):
  • Chrome’s WebDriver BiDi implementation tracker
  • Firefox’s WebDriver BiDi implementation tracker

Further details:

• [x] I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
• Relevant time constraints or deadlines: N/A
• The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: Browser Testing and Tools Working Group
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: N/A
• This work is being funded by: N/A

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as:

💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue

[plinss]

We took a look at this in our vF2F this week and are generally satisfied. Given that this isn't web facing we don't see any significant architectural impact to the web. We're glad to see the broad vendor involvement and support.

Once minor question is why the modifications to JSON-RPC? Not a big deal, but it seems breaking compatibility with standard JSON-RPC libraries should only be done if there's significant benefit, and that isn't clearly articulated.

[mathiasbynens]

Thank you!

Once minor question is why the modifications to JSON-RPC? Not a big deal, but it seems breaking compatibility with standard JSON-RPC libraries should only be done if there's significant benefit, and that isn't clearly articulated.

The motivation for this is explained here: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/14