Jer Noble

> Note: Previous version of this specification used the name :picture-in-picture for this pseudo-class. This name has been deprecated because it was too vague. Web developers may have thought that...

That spec doesn't exist yet, so this problem you're trying to solve doesn't exist yet either. Therefore, this change is not necessary, and making it will cause more confusion, not...

It's currently literally impossible to style the contents of the PiP window, purposefully. So there is no ambiguity in the name. Pages which try to style the contents of the...

I don't think `-window` is quite right either; `window` has existing meaning in the DOM which doesn't match the usage here. Have you considered `:picture-in-picture-root`? There's already an existing pseudo...

We're debating this internally. We think it was just a side effect of our original conflation of "fullscreen presentation modes" and "picture-in-picture", and not intended as an explicit policy. WebKit...

Raised an issue against HTML: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/6271

> * `disablePictureInPicture` is present in the IDL but not actually implemented. It should be pretty easy to add. This is intentional. As I noted when this property was proposed,...

> I feel bad that we will be lying to developers (or that developers may start doing annoying things, like putting divs on-top of videos to prevent the right context...

> Then `.exitPictureInPicture()` should only work on site initiated `.requestPictureInPicture()`, instead of user initiated ones. The sites shouldn't know when the user puts a video in PiP mode. An alternative...

And that UX issue is entirely the fault of the web site, and not the user or the user agent. Blocking Picture-in-Picture is no less user hostile than breaking Picture-in-Picture;...