Explainer for the TODO API

Instructions for the explainer author: Search for "todo" in this repository and update all the instances as appropriate. For the instances in index.bs, update the repository name, but you can leave the rest until you start the specification. Then delete the TODOs and this block of text.

This proposal is an early design sketch by [TODO: team] to describe the problem below and solicit feedback on the proposed solution. It has not been approved to ship in Chrome.

TODO: Fill in the whole explainer template below using https://tag.w3.org/explainers/ as a reference. Look for [brackets].

Proponents

• [Proponent team 1]
• [Proponent team 2]
• [etc.]

Participate

• https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/[your-repository-name]/issues
• [Discussion forum]

Table of Contents [if the explainer is longer than one printed page]

• Introduction
• Goals
• Non-goals
• User research
• Use cases
  • Use case 1
  • Use case 2
• [Potential Solution]
  • How this solution would solve the use cases
    • Use case 1
    • Use case 2
• Detailed design discussion
  • [Tricky design choice #1]
  • [Tricky design choice 2]
• Considered alternatives
  • [Alternative 1]
  • [Alternative 2]
• Stakeholder Feedback / Opposition
• References & acknowledgements

Introduction

[The "executive summary" or "abstract". Explain in a few sentences what the goals of the project are, and a brief overview of how the solution works. This should be no more than 1-2 paragraphs.]

Goals

[What is the end-user need which this project aims to address? Make this section short, and elaborate in the Use cases section.]

Non-goals

[If there are "adjacent" goals which may appear to be in scope but aren't, enumerate them here. This section may be fleshed out as your design progresses and you encounter necessary technical and other trade-offs.]

User research

[If any user research has been conducted to inform your design choices, discuss the process and findings. User research should be more common than it is.]

Use cases

[Describe in detail what problems end-users are facing, which this project is trying to solve. A common mistake in this section is to take a web developer's or server operator's perspective, which makes reviewers worry that the proposal will violate RFC 8890, The Internet is for End Users.]

Use case 1

Use case 2

[Potential Solution]

[For each related element of the proposed solution - be it an additional JS method, a new object, a new element, a new concept etc., create a section which briefly describes it.]

// Provide example code - not IDL - demonstrating the design of the feature.

// If this API can be used on its own to address a user need,
// link it back to one of the scenarios in the goals section.

// If you need to show how to get the feature set up
// (initialized, or using permissions, etc.), include that too.

[Where necessary, provide links to longer explanations of the relevant pre-existing concepts and API. If there is no suitable external documentation, you might like to provide supplementary information as an appendix in this document, and provide an internal link where appropriate.]

[If this is already specced, link to the relevant section of the spec.]

[If spec work is in progress, link to the PR or draft of the spec.]

[If you have more potential solutions in mind, add ## Potential Solution 2, 3, etc. sections.]

How this solution would solve the use cases

[If there are a suite of interacting APIs, show how they work together to solve the use cases described.]

Use case 1

[Description of the end-user scenario]

// Sample code demonstrating how to use these APIs to address that scenario.

Use case 2

[etc.]

Detailed design discussion

[Tricky design choice #1]

[Talk through the tradeoffs in coming to the specific design point you want to make.]

// Illustrated with example code.

[This may be an open question, in which case you should link to any active discussion threads.]

[Tricky design choice 2]

[etc.]

Considered alternatives

[This should include as many alternatives as you can, from high level architectural decisions down to alternative naming choices.]

[Alternative 1]

[Describe an alternative which was considered, and why you decided against it.]

[Alternative 2]

[etc.]

Stakeholder Feedback / Opposition

[Implementors and other stakeholders may already have publicly stated positions on this work. If you can, list them here with links to evidence as appropriate.]

• [Implementor A] : Positive
• [Stakeholder B] : No signals
• [Implementor C] : Negative

[If appropriate, explain the reasons given by other implementors for their concerns.]

References & acknowledgements

[Your design will change and be informed by many people; acknowledge them in an ongoing way! It helps build community and, as we only get by through the contributions of many, is only fair.]

[Unless you have a specific reason not to, these should be in alphabetical order.]

Many thanks for valuable feedback and advice from:

• [Person 1]
• [Person 2]
• [etc.]