Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: The ServiceWorker static routing API not condition support

LGTM3 On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2024-05-29 10:31, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 2:39:02 AM UTC+2 Yoshisato Yanagisawa wrote: > > > > 2024年5月28日(火) 0:21 Vladimir Levin : > > > > On Fri,

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: SkipAd media session action

Hey folks, A few questions from today's API OWNERS: - Are you investigating a generic action button type, the way we've added one for Notifications ? - If you have investigated that, would this feature be

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Dispatch selectionchange event per element

hey folks, We spent a lot of time in API OWNERs today trying to understand this change, and we couldn't crisply describe: - What the old behaviour was - What the new behaviour is going to be - If we've analysed the potential for site breakage, and if not, if we should be adding

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Importmap integrity

I'm also not sure why we would wait. That said, if we're expanding SRI, it would be great to see media resources included. Won't block this intent on it, but for architectural consistency want to flag that we aren't "done". On Wed, May 22, 2024, 6:39 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > I'm inclined to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Support Video Chapter in MediaMetadata

c/+/5516503 >>>>- Filed TAG review: >>>>https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/952 >>>>- Filed WebKit review: >>>>https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/344 >>>>- Filed Gecko review: >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Automatic Fullscreen Content Setting

Will the status of the permission be reflected in the Permissions API? I see Permissions Policy integration, but not the Permissions API reflection that I'd expect. Best, Alex On Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 3:54:24 PM UTC-7 Mike Wasserman wrote: > Thanks! I pinged the PR, and hope for some

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Translation API

., do systems ever produce partial translations that they then change? Best, Alex On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:54 PM Domenic Denicola wrote: > > > On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:43 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> This effort seems worthwhile, and would like to see an explainer that >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Stop modifying author-defined selection colors

LGTM2 On Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 1:41:40 AM UTC+2 Stephen Chenney wrote: > >> Contact emailsschen...@chromium.org >> >> ExplainerNone >> >> Specificationhttps://www.w3.org/TR/css-pseudo-4/#highlight-selectors >> >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebRTC encoded transform - Constructor with custom Metadata (originally Modify Metadata functions)

Hey Guido, This is a cool feature! The Milestones section shows that an OT was run; is there a summary someplace of what we learned from the OT? Best, Alex On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 4:40:31 AM UTC-7 Guido Urdaneta wrote: > Contact emails...@chromium.org, gui...@chromium.org,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Tabbed web apps

I'm happy for this to be CrOS first, but would like to unpack Brett's statement above a bit. If we (MSFT) were to polish this up for Windows, would patches for that be accepted? On Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 6:25:26 PM UTC-7 Matt Giuca wrote: > Hi Yoav, > > The API was specifically designed to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature Bundle: Additional Verbose Debug Reports, Further Gating Source Verbose Debug Reports, Splitting the Attribution Rate Limit

Hey folks, We've talked about this in API OWNERS again, and the presentation of this set of features is...frustrating. Several of these features lack any explanation, example code, or any outline of alternative approaches that were considered and discarded. Having multiple features presented

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Support Video Chapter in MediaMetadata

Hey folks, On reviewing this, I'm concerned that this isn't also addressing the same needs for Audio. This would have come up in a TAG review, and probably would have been fleshed out in an Explainer. Would like to see those before this progresses. Best, Alex On Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Conversion to RGB in VideoFrame.copyTo()

hey Eugene, This is an exciting an useful addition! Have you looked into other platform APIs that could benefit from being able to explicitly specify intermediate format hinting and/or transformation? It's a place where (had the TAG been consulted) I would have expected to see a larger chain

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: View Transitions Same-Origin Navigation

LGTM1 On Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:13:42 PM UTC-7 Khushal Sagar wrote: > Contact emails > > bo...@google.com, khushalsa...@google.com, nrosent...@google.com, > vmp...@google.com > > Explainer > > https://github.com/WICG/view-transitions/blob/main/cross-doc-explainer.md >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Translation API

This effort seems worthwhile, and would like to see an explainer that discisses the various API options; that might provide some context for the security conversation. Best, Alex On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 2:30 AM 'Fergal Daly' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Apr

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Support Cross-Origin Shared Storage Worklets

Hey Josh, I agree that it might not be helpful to ping Gecko and WebKit on this, but it would still be helpful to update the TAG on how this design is evolving. >From that perspective, I would expect the TAG to request that we improve consistency by making cross-origin workers (not just

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Anchor Positioning

LGTM1. Excited to see this ship! On Monday, April 15, 2024 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > Thanks for the detailed reply, fantasai! And also thank you very much for > all of the hard work you and Tab have put into this feature to make it what > it is. We very much appreciate it. > >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Gamepad API Trigger-Rumble Extension

LGTM1 On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 4:02:45 PM UTC-7 Gabriel Brito wrote: > Contact emails > gabrielbr...@microsoft.com > > Explainer > > https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/GamepadHapticsActuatorTriggerRumble/explainer.md > > Specification >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: Split up large trusted signals fetches & deprectedReplaceInURN via auction config

Now that this has approval, it would be good to understand when the V2 changes to move to POST are anticipated to go out and the deprecation timline for this version. Best, Alex On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 8:43:17 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM3 > > /Daniel > On 2024-04-08 17:37,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

TML()` function. But as you said, I'd like > the new one to be available for at least a few milestones to give folks > time to migrate. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 9:27 PM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> Drive-by API design comments: >> >> Was this run past the TAG? Did they as

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

LGTM3 On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 8:51:54 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2024-04-08 17:35, Mike Taylor wrote: > > LGTM1 > On 4/4/24 2:29 PM, 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev wrote: > > The last launch gate approval came in today. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Continue Experimenting: Tabbed Web Apps

Great to hear there's support for the feature. 118-126 w/o breaking changes is pushing things. Is it practical to ship inside the 123-126 window? How close are we? Best, Alex On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 9:07:37 AM UTC-7 Stefan Peter wrote: > Hi, I think it would help to extend the Open

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Declarative shadow DOM serialization

Drive-by API design comments: Was this run past the TAG? Did they ask this is not adding a way to return a stream? And was there a discussion of a setter API that supports streams? It would be disappointing if we added new surface of this sort without resolving the core data type issues. Best,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

LGTM3 On Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 2:59:45 PM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 3/14/24 12:43 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > Awesome! LGTM1. > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:35 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for clarifying! Updated the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private Aggregation debug mode for auctionReportBuyers reporting

have communicated the temporary nature of this exception in > the developer documentation > <https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/private-aggregation#enabledebugmode>. > Also, note that trying to enable debug mode already has no effect for users > who have explicitly di

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private Aggregation debug mode for auctionReportBuyers reporting

Hey all, This may be overfitting against my personal priors, but I'm *intensely *skeptical of any web platform API addition that claims to be "temporary". If we want a temporary mechanism, we can use OTs and set a date-certain for removal and prevent over-use that would back us into a corner.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to ship: MP4 container support for MediaRecorder

LGTM3 At a higher level, it would be great for AV1/VP9 encode to end up in something like Interop. It makes me sad to be adding a vote here to enable a closed format when open ones are better. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 8:43:11 AM UTC-8 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM2 > > I think that >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Sec-CH-UA-Form-Factor client hint

LGTM3, contingent on the rename Domenic is requesting. On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 6:48:14 PM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: > (non-owner hat on) - Thanks for flagging, Domenic. We'll re-ping the > thread once we decide if we should rename it, and to what. > On 2/28/24 9:43 PM, Domenic

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: 'priority' HTTP request header

LGTM3 On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 8:58:42 AM UTC-8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 4:12 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < > yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> >> Thanks for catching us up here! >> >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 4:15 PM Patrick Meenan >> wrote:

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting API Features (Trigger Data Customization and Aggregatable Value Filters)

Hey folks, I also appreciate the quality of the design work here, but we need developer interest to be able to launch features out ahead of other engines. Was an OT done? What other signals do we have to go on? Best, Alex On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 10:56:21 PM UTC-8 Yoav Weiss wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebSocketStream

> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adam, >>>> >>>> Would you mind requesting approvals in the chromestatus entry for the >>>> various review gates? >>>> On 2/8/24 1:30 AM, Adam Rice wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, no partners were

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private Network Access permission to relax mixed content

LGTM3 On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 7:57:00 AM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 2/15/24 4:55 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:51 AM 'Yifan Luo' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> OT findings: >> >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebSocketStream

Hey Adam, Glad to see this moving forward! Has there been a summary somewhere of the OT feedback? Also, we noted that the other reviews were marked as unstarted in chromestatus; we will likely hold off voting until those are in flight. Thanks! On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 1:43:46 PM UTC-8

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: RTCRtpSender setParameters() extensions for requesting the generation of a key frame

LGTM3 On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 1/19/24 12:41 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:36 AM 'Vladimir Levin' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for the detailed explanation. It's hard

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: FedCM: domain hint and disconnect

hey Nicholas, Apologies for the slow follow up here. As a general matter I don't have a strong opinion about bundling of intents, assuming they're all non-controversial and don't need additional review. That suggests as case-by-case review, which also seems fine here. I'm happy for the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Set methods

LGTM2 On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:49:57 AM UTC-8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:57 PM Rezvan Mahdavi Hezaveh < > rez...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Yes, that's right. Firefox and Safari shipping/shipped set methods. >> >> Bests, >> Rezvan >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: MessagePort.onclose

+1 to Yoav's excitement about this. Thank you for pushing it forward. On TAG review, we're living in hope that the newly-expanded TAG will have more bandwidth and focus for reviews, but as Mike says, we're increasingly timing out. Filing for review at I2P time is always the pro-move, and I

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: FedCM: domain hint and disconnect

Hey Nicolas: Sorry for not fully understanding the impact of these features. A (very) quick read on my end suggests that they might not be related? Is there a code example or explainer that highlights why they belong in the same Intent? Thanks, Alex On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:42:38 AM

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGL drawingBufferStorage

LGTM3 On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 2:00:36 PM UTC-8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> Given that Kelsey gave you a private positive signal and the spec is >> merged, that works for me. >> >> LGTM1 to ship. >> On 12/20/23 4:44

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: MediaStreamTrack Stats (Audio)

LGTM1 On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:00:41 AM UTC-8 Rick Byers wrote: > Sounds good Henrik! Yes, from our brief discussion in the API owners > meeting I believe you have support from at least 3 API owners to proceed in > this direction. It's important to us that we engage constructively

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Async Clipboard API: Read unsanitized HTML format

Thanks for re-sending this under different cover. I understand that the previous entry's Security review covers this, so LGTM1 Best, Alex On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 1:27:31 PM UTC-8 snianu wrote: > Resending the I2S with all the updates and a summary of discussion that > happened in

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: EditContext API

+1 to the evidence from OT being persuasive. LGTM2 On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:56:24 AM UTC-8 Rick Byers wrote: > It certainly sounds to me that there's additional work to be done here, > but I agree with Daniel that changing event order is not something we can > do lightly. Gregg,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

;> "bikeshed", that is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With my HTML spec editor hat on, I have a clarifying point and >>>>>>> question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

ks the client's IP using IETF defined > CONNECT, CONNECT-UDP, and MASQUE, etc. But if TAG would like to provide > input on our design choices, that could be useful. But it shouldn't block > an experiment. > On 10/19/23 3:22 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > > Why has the TAG not been consulte

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

Why has the TAG not been consulted? On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 3:09 PM 'Brianna Goldstein' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > *Correction*: > The link to the entry on the Chrome Platform Status was incorrect. Below > is the corrected link > >

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

into using the TAG for "Early Design >> Reviews" somewhere between your I2P and you kicking off a Devtrial. >> >> Sam >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:53 AM Alex Russell >> wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> A frequent occu

Re: [blink-dev] Re: PSA: Web MIDI Permissions Prompt Change

ure of the permission prompt change is described in >> the Chromestatus entry. >> >> Please let me know if you have more questions. >> >> Best, >> Michael >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:11 PM Michael Wilson >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: PointerEvent.deviceId for Mult-Pen Inking

I agree that this needs a spec PR and the explainer should at least migrate to WICG before we agree to ship. Also, can you please link to the TAG review? Best, Alex On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:16:41 AM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:42 AM Mike Taylor > wrote: >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: PSA: Web MIDI Permissions Prompt Change

What's the rationale for this change? Is it documented anywhere? I don't see an Explainer linked. On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 2:11 PM 'Ajay Rahatekar' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > This feature is now planned to ship in M121. > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:59:23 PM UTC-7 Ajay

[blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

Hey all, A frequent occurrence in recent reviews have been sizeable features arriving at Intent-to-Ship with no effort made in previous intents to ask the TAG for advice and no reason given for avoiding this part of the processes. This slows down launches while we pause consideration of an

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebAssembly Multi-Memory

It's unclear why the TAG is not being informed or consulted. This has deep architectural implications for DOM integration and I'd expect to see those explained and worked. On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 10:08 AM Clemens Backes wrote: > Contact emailscleme...@google.com > > ExplainerWe are ready for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU f16 support

Thanks Sangwhan. Provisional LGTM3, pending an update on TAG discussion. If TAG wants to discuss, we can leave flipped on for Beta while it resolves. Best, Alex On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 10:19 AM Sangwhan Moon wrote: > Just to be on record, this is small enough of change that it won't require >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Re-implement and Ship: CSS Font Loading API - FontFaceSet: check() method

LGTM1 On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 1:01 PM ChangSeok Oh wrote: > Contact emails > changseok...@bytedance.com, shivami...@gmail.com > > Specification > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-font-loading/#font-face-set-check > > Summary > > The FontFaceSet's check() function verifies whether it's possible to >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: URL.canParse

LGTM2 On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:24 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1 > On 10/13/23 6:08 PM, Jeremy Roman wrote: > > Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-url-canparse > > Summary > > A static operation to determine whether a URL

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web app scope extensions

I'm supportive of this, but curious why 6 milestones. If there are partners signed up to provide feedback, can we summarize that input sooner than 6 months? Best, Alex On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 9:00 AM 'Lu Huang' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Quick update: > We would like to

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

t;> <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8467#issuecomment-1381645661>, >>>>>>> and the CSSWG accepted that suggestion in August >>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4805#issuecomment-1663111980>. >>>>&g

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Intersection Observer Scroll Margin

Given that the TAG didn't respond in two weeks, I'm going to LGTM1 On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:50:14 PM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:27 PM Traian Captan > wrote: > >> Hi Yoav, >> >> I don't know of Gecko's and WebKit's concrete implementation plans for >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: 'priority' HTTP request header

Why has this not been sent to the TAG? On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 1:40 PM Patrick Meenan wrote: > Contact emailspmee...@google.com > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9218 > > Summary > > This feature adds the 'priority' request header for all HTTP requests with >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to implement and ship: Media query support for video elements

LGTM3 On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 1:36:25 PM UTC-7 Scott Jehl wrote: > Thanks!! > > On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 16:14:19 UTC-4 Dale Curtis wrote: > >> Thanks! >> > >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:53 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: >> > LGTM1 >>> >>> Thanks for correcting this historical mistake! >>>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Close requests for CloseWatcher, , and popover=""

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:16:53 AM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: 2023年10月2日(月) 10:11 Alex Russell : On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 5:01 AM Alex Russell wrote: The implicit behaviours based on construction order

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Close requests for CloseWatcher, , and popover=""

On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 5:01 AM Alex Russell wrote: The implicit behaviours based on construction order in this API are very strange and seem like footguns. I don't understand why you find this strange, or a footgun

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Close requests for CloseWatcher, , and popover=""

The implicit behaviours based on construction order in this API are very strange and seem like footguns. The TAG feedback didn't touch on this very much, AFAICT, but it's somewhat surprising that the stack of close actions isn't inspectable. What's the behaviour of non-`destroy()`'d watchers;

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Intersection Observer Scroll Margin

This looks relatively non-controversial, but why wasn't a TAG review requested? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

hrm, this is another instance of bikeshedding after shipping, and I'm not inclined to approve. Perhaps we can discuss at next week's API OWNERs meeting? Adding others who I know are interested in this topic. On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:16:13 AM UTC-7 Joey Arhar wrote: > The spec for

[blink-dev] Re: PSA: Minor additions to WebGPU

Presumably these are developer-expose changes. Can you please file an Intent-to-prototype-and-ship for them? On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:44:21 AM UTC-7 Corentin Wallez wrote: > Hey all, > > We are doing two minor additions to WebGPU that we believe have zero > compatibility risk: > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Compression dictionary transport with Shared Brotli

Hey folks, Glad to see there's excitement around the OT; was wondering if there has been any work to extend Compression Streams for zstd as part of this effort? I don't see it in the explainer, and it would be great for us not to be adding new ecodings that aren't also exposed to userland.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Promise.withResolvers

LGTM3 On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 7:22 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 9/16/23 8:22 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > Very neat!! That would definitely have simplified some testing code I > recently wrote :) > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:50 AM 'Shu-yu Guo' via blink-dev < >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Clip-path xywh() and rect() values

LGTM1 On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 1:19 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > On 9/11/23 7:18 PM, Philip Rogers wrote: > > Contact emails p...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification https://www.w3.org/TR/css-shapes/#supported-basic-shapes > > Summary > > Support the xywh() and rect() values on clip-path,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

Was corrected in the API OWNERS meeting re: TAG review; apologies for the noise. LGTM2 On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-7 Alex Russell wrote: > Why is there no TAG review filed here? > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt > wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

Why is there no TAG review filed here? On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > Thanks for adding that test Joey! > > > https://staging.wpt.fyi/results/css/selectors/valid-invalid-form-fieldset.html?label=pr_head=1=41801 > > shows that it also passes on

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

", "Key >> pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this >> specification" from when the spec was originally written? >> > > Given that this is shipped in Safari, the TAG review is not a blocker > based on our process. So I think you can k

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

Hey Aaron, thanks for the links. I'm goint to LGTM1 this on the condition you dot some i's and cross some t's. First, please use the Mozilla Standards Positions process to guage their temperature rather than links to bugs: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ When Mozilla

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate: Remove "Sanitizer API MVP"

Hey all, We had a long conversation about this in today's API OWNERS meeting, and per my previous note, I'm going to LGTM3 this with conditions because: - Usage is low, but growing - The spec changes have been merged into HTML, reducing risk for moving to the new API somewhat -

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype And Ship: Allow transferring ArrayBuffer into VideoFrame, AudioData, EncodedVideoChunk, EncodedAudioChunk, ImageDecoder constructors

Hey Eugene, I'm a little worried that we're debating API shape here when there hasn't been any guidance from the TAG on design consistency. Have you either asked the TAG to weigh in (didn't see a review link in the Intent) or asked Chromium (ex)TAG members to give the API a once-over? Best,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove non-standard appearance keywords

gt;> same 1 slider-vertical. >>> >>> WebFeature::kCSSValueAppearanceNonStandard is currently tracking for all >>> non-standard values, including slider-vertical. I could make them into 2 >>> different WebFeatures as I suspect slider-vertical is hi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Storage Access API with Prompts

ssuecomment-1550967682> > > ways to use document.requestStorageAccess() to provide access to > unpartitioned DOM storage in the future, in which case the current name > would be more appropriate. > > Chris > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:46:41 PM UTC-4 Alex Russell wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

I'd like, once again, to emphasise that this change is not strictly necessary and the bikeshedding is against policy. I'm not sure why we're doing this instead of introducing the new behaviour behind the old name and holding that line. Best, Alex On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:44:01 AM

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate: Remove "Sanitizer API MVP"

-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:13 PM Alex Russell >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Daniel, >>> >>> Hrm, this isn't how things are supposed to work. >>> >>> The API

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Storage Access API with Prompts

Hey Chris, Thanks for the details here. Can you perhaps outline why we didn't take the opportunity here to rename this to better represent what the API actually does? E.g., `requestUnpartitionedCookieAccess()`? And was any effort made to move the API to a more suitable object; e.g.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API

Hey Lauren, Sorry for the slow follow up; inline: On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:26:24 AM UTC-7 Lauren N. Liberda wrote: On 04/08/2023 19:28, Alex Russell wrote: Sorry for the slow follow-up here. On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:26:25 PM UTC-7 Lauren N. Liberda wrote: >I have encoura

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate: Remove "Sanitizer API MVP"

Hey Daniel, Hrm, this isn't how things are supposed to work. The API OWNERS set a high bar to ship exactly to prevent this sort of bikeshedding after shipping. Is it possible to make compatible additions instead? Best, Alex On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:35:16 AM UTC-7 Daniel Vogelheim

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API

Sorry for the slow follow-up here. On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:26:25 PM UTC-7 Lauren N. Liberda wrote: >I have encouraged the team working on this to ignore feedback in any forum in which something like Chromium's code of conduct

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to extend experiment: WebAssembly Garbage Collection (WasmGC), plus stringref

HCVFSW0/m/YKheArEAAgAJ>). >> >> So far, everything looks promising and we just ask to gather more data to >> make a more informed decision when the proposal goes for its final vote. We >> certainly don't intend to soft launch the feature. >> >> Adam

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype & Ship: Cookie Expires/Max-Age attribute upper limit for prior storage

Hey Ari, It isn't clear to me that the change in the RFC is a motivator to make this change, or that it reduces potential risk. There are details here will matter a lot to the risk profile. IIRC, we'll be going first with regards to the lifetime of first-party, server-set cookies? Do we have

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Form Controls Support Vertical Writing Mode

LGTM1 On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:31:20 PM UTC-7 Di Zhang wrote: > Contact emailsdizha...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-writing-modes-4/#block-flow > > Summary > > CSS property writing-mode should be enabled for form controls elements as > it

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to extend experiment: WebAssembly Garbage Collection (WasmGC), plus stringref

e will have to adapt our implementation > before its stable release. This does not affect the functionality as the > functionality is perfectly aligned, only the op codes are going to change > <https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc/pull/372>. > > I hope this helps alleviate your c

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience features: recency, rounding bids & scores

LGTM3 On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 10:21:53 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 7/26/23 12:10 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 5:31 PM Paul Jensen > wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >> pauljen...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer >> >> >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: Clip-path geometry-box values

LGTM1 On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:27:31 PM UTC-7 Philip Rogers wrote: > Contact emails...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://drafts.fxtf.org/css-masking/#the-clip-path > > Summary > > Clip-path supports values to control the clip's reference > box, making clip-path

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to extend experiment: WebAssembly Garbage Collection (WasmGC), plus stringref

I'd be much more likely to support the extension if there was a report-out on what we've learned this far, particularly given the increasing risks presented by big products using it (Sheets) given that we're proposing to stretch to 8 months with no breaking changes. Best, Alex On Wednesday,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove non-standard appearance keywords

Hey Di, Thanks for taking compat seriously. We chatted about this at API OWNERS this morning, and there'd broad support for the deprecation. There's also concern about the relatively short deprecation window, but maybe there are some ways we can build confidence? Some ideas that were

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: ServiceWorker static routing API

Excited to see this moving forward! On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:10:04 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM! > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 8:44 PM Shunya Shishido > wrote: > >> Contact emailsyyanagis...@google.com, sisidov...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web Serial support for Bluetooth RFCOMM services

Sounds good; thanks for explaining. On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:02:00 PM UTC-7 Reilly Grant wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:03 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> A screenshot would go a long way. >> >> Exciting to hear there's a partner that want this. >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web Serial support for Bluetooth RFCOMM services

A screenshot would go a long way. Exciting to hear there's a partner that want this. Also, was there consideration of an OT? A strong reason to avoid? On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:55:25 AM UTC-7 Reilly Grant wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:05 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web Serial support for Bluetooth RFCOMM services

I'm going to have to stay recused on this vote, but just want to lend my fullest non-voting support to shipping ASAP. This is excellent work, and I can see you've dotted i's and crossed t's in anticipation of a full shakedown here. Thanks for doing it. It might be helpful for others evaluating

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Per-frame quantizer in VideoEncoder

>>> Thanks for the feedback. >>> I put together an explainer and linked it on the ChromeStatus feature >>> page: >>> >>> https://gist.github.com/Djuffin/3722232679b977058be787be0dff4254 >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 8:57 

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API

Hey folks, I think it's worth lowering the temperature here a bit, so to Chris' point, we probably need to re-evaluate some of the choices in this design, and signpost any redesign or iteration quickly. But backing up a bit, it would be extremely helpful for y'all to reach out to the TAG ASAP;

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: fetchLater API

I'm surprised not to see a discussion of the (poorly named, but heavily overlapping) Background Sync API that we've shipped for many years in the Explainer: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/background-sync/ Best, Alex On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:26:42 AM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: content-visibility: auto implies contain-intrinsic-size: auto

Please send this as an FYI to the TAG. The fact of something being agreed in the CSS WG does not say much for platform consistency and quality. Given that I grok this and think it's reasonable (with my ex-TAG member hat on), I'll give y'all a pass on a full review, but please file in future.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Per-frame quantizer in VideoEncoder

I *think* I grok what this is for, and I'm still pretty frustrated that there isn't a crisp summary along the lines of "this parameter helps sites implement custom bitrate vs. quality vs. CPU use tradeoffs for different kinds of media and streams, which are important to customers like X, Y, and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS text-wrap: pretty

Have followed up again in the design doc. Would like to make sure that multiple (potentially competing) values for `text-wrap` have clear precedence and that we have a plan for adding new values (e.g., for full LaTeX flow for printing). Thanks again. Best, Alex On Wednesday, June 28, 2023

  1   2   3   >