Updated and pushed. Two things were wrong with it, one of which mattered more than staleness.
The correction
The copy said:
"#165's requestUserInteraction(), which we feature-detect on every call and found absent in Chrome 152."
That reads as a spec feature Chrome hadn't shipped. I checked: requestUserInteraction appears zero times in index.bs. It's the shape proposed in #165, and it's absent from Chrome 152 and Chromium 153.
That's the exact draft-vs-implementation conflation we were corrected for upstream — sitting in the submission text the whole time. Now stated as a proposal.
What was missing
The whole "What went upstream" section, which didn't exist when this was written. That's the biggest change to what this project is:
Adopted — enforcement by absence is mitigation (d) in #298's body, credited Cited — our reproduction is in #300's body Contributed — WPT #62642, fails on 152, passes on 153 Measured — #299 and #96 Corrected — the two times we were wrong and said so publicly
"Built against the spec issues" and "the findings went back and changed them" are different claims, and only one of them was on the page.
Also
Every number re-measured, not recalled — 385 tests, 36 Chrome assertions, 14 a11y checks, 16 providers, 8 max live. I put the commands to re-measure them in the paste comment so the next edit has no excuse.
Added the accessibility honesty (contrast measured not estimated, and the no-screen-reader/no-disabled-user line), and the features built since: surfaces reflecting each other's calls, and constraints that grey the slots they exclude while saying which window excluded them.
Log in or sign up for Devpost to join the conversation.