Early Design Review: Speculation Rules

[jeremyroman]

HIQaH! QaH! TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of Speculation Rules.

Summary:

Flexible syntax for defining what outgoing links are eligible to be prepared speculatively before navigation (e.g. prefetching, prerendering). Enables access to additional enhancements, such as use of a private prefetch proxy, where applicable.

• Explainer (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/triggers.md
• Security and Privacy self-review: https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/speculation-rules-security-privacy-questionnaire.md
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/issues
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Jeremy Roman (@jeremyroman), Google
• Organization/project driving the design: Google Chrome
• External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://chromestatus.com/feature/5740655424831488

Further details:

• ✅ I have reviewed the TAG's API Design Principles
• The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future): WICG (future)
• 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: n/a
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design: n/a
• This work is being funded by: Google

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as:

☂️ open a single issue in our GitHub repo for the entire review

[rhiaro]

Closing per WICG/nav-speculation#56 (comment)

[torgo]

We're still concerned because this is sitting in a private repo and not even submitted to WICG. @jeremyroman can you let us know the timeline for getting this into a proper standards track? /cc @chrishtr @yoavweiss

[jeremyroman]

Sorry for the slow response on my part, @torgo; we're looking into this now. It was previously submitted to WICG (WICG/proposals#2) but at the time we were told the proposal needed to mature and attract more interest to be accepted to WICG.