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

RFP: Cookie Change Events #50

Closed
hsivonen opened this issue Nov 13, 2017 · 12 comments
Closed

RFP: Cookie Change Events #50

hsivonen opened this issue Nov 13, 2017 · 12 comments

Comments

@hsivonen
Copy link
Member

Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification

Other information

Currently, for a page to become aware of cookie changes made by another browsing context with a page from the same site open, the page has to poll document.cookie. The feature being proposed makes polling unnecessary by introducing an event that can be listened to instead.

See also an explainer.

@hsivonen
Copy link
Member Author

CC @jdm based on the Gecko module owner page.

@hsivonen
Copy link
Member Author

Not being an expert in this area of the engine, the general idea of having an event instead of polling seems reasonable, but ChangeCause exposure in the API may be a problem in terms of allowing sites to detect more privacy-oriented browser configurations and discriminating against users who've chosen such configurations.

@hsivonen
Copy link
Member Author

CC @tefn3849

@jdm
Copy link

jdm commented Nov 13, 2017

From an email exchange with Overholt about this:

I'm not sure if the network team will have an opinion here, since this doesn't actually affect how 
cookies are processed by the network stack. My initial reaction is that we're not actually interested in 
making cookies easier to use (and certainly that's the IETF's position in regards to proposals to add 
new features to the cookie parsing and storage specifications), but I feel like people on the DOM team 
are in a better position to make that call. Figuring out how much use document.cookies sees would 
help guide that decision.

@overholt
Copy link

I forgot that @asutherland may have an informed opinion here.

@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Nov 13, 2017

I would be more comfortable if we worked through whatwg/html#804 first before exposing the underlying issues in more ways.

(There's also some inherent issues with cookies: eTLD+1 (though this is also why they continue to be popular); HttpOnly flag creating all kinds of trouble for JavaScript APIs).

@asutherland
Copy link
Member

From an implementation flexibility perspective, implementing this seems undesirable. Specifically, https://github.com/patrickkettner/cookie-change-events/ proposes an unfiltered DOM event, whereas the similar-but-different[1] https://github.com/WICG/cookie-store/ allows for specifying specific interests. Based on discussion with jdm, we currently do broadcast all cookie changes, so we could implement this as proposed, but it would limit future optimizations.

A perhaps stronger argument for not implementing cookie-change-event is to allow the async cookie-store API to have a carrot. When switching to its observer mechanism, developers might hopefully switch to using its async API at the same time.

1: patrickkettner/cookie-change-events#14 includes some discussion of the differences between the proposals.

@hsivonen
Copy link
Member Author

My reading of the comments is that our position is negative. @dbaron, how do we proceed from here? Do you make a call for the position?

@dbaron dbaron added the w3c-cg Specifications in W3C Community Groups (e.g., WICG, Privacy CG) label Aug 9, 2018
@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Jun 24, 2019

I strongly suspect this is abandonware at this point.

@marcoscaceres marcoscaceres removed the w3c-cg Specifications in W3C Community Groups (e.g., WICG, Privacy CG) label Jun 25, 2019
@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Contributor

Dropping WICG label, as this was never adopted by the WICG either.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Contributor

@patrickkettner, you are no longer pursuing this, right?

@patrickkettner
Copy link

patrickkettner commented Jun 25, 2019 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants