Same-origin prerendering triggered by speculationrules

[mfalken]

Ya ya yawm TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of same-origin prerendereing triggered by speculationrules.

This feature is about the specific case of same-origin prerendering triggered by the speculation rules API.

This feature enables authors to provide a hint to the browser to prerender a URL, so the end-user can experience a near-instantaneous page load if that URL is visited.

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/same-origin-explainer.md
• Security and Privacy self-review²: https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/same-origin-security-privacy-questionnaire.md
• GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Matt Falkenhagen (mfalken), Google, contributor
  • Domenic Denicola (domenic), Google, editor
• Organization/project driving the design: Google Chrome
• External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status): https://chromestatus.com/feature/5355965538893824

Further details:

• ✅ 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 (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: none known
• This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that...

This feature is related to #611 in that it is a specific case of that triggering mechanism.

It is also related to #613, which is a particular API exposed by this feature.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

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

[kenchris]

The "speculation rules API." URL doesn't work for me

[cynthia]

I think it is this: https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/triggers.md

[mfalken]

Apologies, fixed, thanks.

[torgo]

Hi @mfalken - one thing to note is that Speculation Rules itself is still in a private repo.

@jeremyroman is this indeed in WICG? Yes there has been a positive TAG review that was based on an "early review" - if this feature itself is still in incubation then maybe it's premature to start building stuff on top of?

Regarding speculation rules, Chrome Status still shows "no signals" from other implementers or developers. Is there any multi-implementer activity? Again - a lack of consensus on speculation rules itself could mean that it's premature to base other features on it.

[torgo]

We discussed it today and we've agreed it's premature for us to be reviewing this due to the status of speculation rules itself... Please can you request for the issue to be reopened when things have moved on a bit?

[torgo]

@mfalken great to see that Speculation Rules itself has moved into WICG - that's progress. However, Chromestatus still shows "no signal" for Safari, Firefox and also for developer feedback. Can you provide any further info?

[jeremyroman]

@nyaxt @nhiroki should probably be the contacts for this on the Chromium side going forward (@mfalken is working on other projects now).

On the Speculation Rules side, we've received encouraging feedback for the overall effort in WICG/proposals#2 leading to the WICG/nav-speculation being created. Formal signals from Safari and Firefox in Chrome Status is generally populated by using their respective processes (webkit-dev, mozilla/standards-positions) and we're working on some updates before requesting those (along with other steps in standards-space).

[nhiroki]

Thank you for mentioning us. Yes, @nyaxt and I are the new contacts of the Chromium impl.

[torgo]

Hi @nhiroki thanks for letting us know - can you give an update on the status?

[nhiroki]

@torgo Chromium has already implemented the feature behind the runtime flag. We started Origin Trial from Chrome 94 (explainer) and will collect feedback from participants. In addition, we started upstreaming tests to the WPT repository.

[rhiaro]

Hi @nhiroki, we're looking at this in our virtual face-to-face today. Have you had chance to make progress on the issues I raised in our review feedback (#90)? Thanks.

[yoavweiss]

Have you had chance to make progress on the issues I raised in our review feedback (#90)?

Drive-by question: Is this the right issue? Naively, it seems unrelated..

[yoavweiss]

NM, Found the issue is WICG/nav-speculation#90

[torgo]

We will review the status of the 4 closed issues and decide whether to close this at the upcoming f2f.

[rhiaro]

We reviewed the six issues spun out from the TAG review at our face-to-face this week, and appreciate the thoughtful responses. We are happy to see this work move forward, with a few notes:

• We look forward to reviewing a completed Security & Privacy Considerations section including mitigations, in the future. (In particular, regarding your note in the questionnaire: "But the user agent's heuristics deciding whether to honor a prerender hint can potentially leak information.")
• We would like to see UA heuristics for prerendering developed publicly or even better in a standardised/normative way as a mitigation for some of the privacy concerns raised, or to discourage practices that may have a negative impact on end user control and choice.
• I would like to reopen #101 - I've left a comment to clarify my question, but this isn't blocking.

[rhiaro]

Hi @mfalken, @jeremyroman, @KenjiBaheux, just following up on my previous comment. Would you mind reopening issue 101? Thanks!