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

To be particular about the usage number, it's about a magnitude more than our informal limit. That doesn't mean it can't be shipped, but it means that we want to be fairly certain that >90% of the users are unaffected by the change. How should I interpret the results from your investigation?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Experiment: Skip Ad in Picture-in-Picture window

Unfortunately it doesn't show up in the API Owner UI/ToDo list and I can't directly see how to make it appear. jrobbins, is there anything strange with this one? It is very old so it might be different from anything done the last couple of years. /Daniel On 2024-05-17 22:39, 'Jiaming Cheng'

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

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-05-15 07:13, Domenic Denicola wrote: LGTM1. I have a small non-blocking request: update your Chrome Status entry to avoid using ClassName.staticMethod() syntax for what appears to be an instance method. (See e.g. this related discussion

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Find-in-page highlight pseudos

I appreciate that someone is working on this because Chromium has atrociously bad search hit highlights. That said, I wonder if it would be better fixing Chromium than the web. There are a lot of web pages out and this could at best help those with very active ongoing development. /Daniel On

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

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-05-15 15:47, Guido Urdaneta wrote: I just opened access to the doc. On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:57 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: The document seems to be an internal one. Is there anything you can share publicly? /Daniel On 2024-05-15 07:34, Domenic Denicola

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

The document seems to be an internal one. Is there anything you can share publicly? /Daniel On 2024-05-15 07:34, Domenic Denicola wrote: LGTM2 On Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 4:47:32 AM UTC+9 Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks for the doc. It sounds like the design evolved during the OT based

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Document picture-in-picture: propagate user activation

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-05-08 17:11, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 11:33:01 PM UTC+2 Tommy Steimel wrote: Contact emails stei...@chromium.org, liber...@chromium.org Explainer None

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

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-04-10 18:43, Alex Russell wrote: Ok, so Chris reminded me that we'd already shipped a setter via `setHTMLUnsafe()` and that Mozilla has an intent out for this new version of the getter, which suggests to me that we should, indeed, handle the streams thing separately.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Stepped Value Functions

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-04-08 17:37, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 4/8/24 10:41 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: Can you please flip on the "debuggability" review bit in chromestatus? (feel free to mark it as "N/A" if you think that's the case) On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 4:40 PM Yoav Weiss

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

/webcodecs/pull/759#issuecomment-1928349508 On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:10 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: This may be a bit of a tangent, but we had a discussion about AV1-only encoder configuration a while back[1][2]. In the end they elected to have a top level dictionary where

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

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-04-08 17:37, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:36 PM Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 4/3/24 11:05 AM, Daniel Bratell wrote: Thanks, that clarifies a bit and calms my worries considerably. /Daniel On 2024-03-29 14:27, Paul

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

This may be a bit of a tangent, but we had a discussion about AV1-only encoder configuration a while back[1][2]. In the end they elected to have a top level dictionary where some encoding configuration ended up. I wonder if there is anything to learn from that process and their choices or if

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Extending Storage Access API (SAA) to non-cookie storage

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-03-20 16:14, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 The signals from other vendors and the CG discussion seem encouraging and I agree that the future risk from an "all" value is probably outweighed by its developer-facing benefits. On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:56 PM Ari

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

esters; responses are not combined for requesters. On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:21 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: I can't help thinking about all the problems exposed when malicious use of Out of Sequence TCP became a thing among the evil-doers. It turned out that once you split something up

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Scroll To Text Fragment

2:24:40 PM UTC-8 sligh...@chromium.org wrote: LGTM4 On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 12:17:49 PM UTC-8, Daniel Bratell wrote:

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

I can't help thinking about all the problems exposed when malicious use of Out of Sequence TCP became a thing among the evil-doers. It turned out that once you split something up, it's not always easy to put it back together again. It is a solved problem (but not quite, I found newly

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Deprecation Trial: Removal of X-Requested-With in WebView

This being beyond the normal scope of an extension will require three LGTMS so here is the first one: LGTM1 I appreciate that it's not optimal in any way to have something like this running this long, but I sympathize with the end result and understand that App developers can need both

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature Bundle: Header Error Debug Reports, Preferred Platform field, Changing Source Deactivation

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-27 16:16, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7:25:13 PM UTC+1 Akash Nadan wrote: Hi Yoav, the reasoning behind this change is that there is a privacy gap with the current attribution flow and position of the source

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: X25519Kyber768 key encapsulation for TLS on Desktop

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-20 23:54, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2. Good luck! On 3/20/24 4:30 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:35 PM David Adrian wrote: > What's our plan to mitigate that risk? Slow rollout? Enterprise policy? Both? Something else

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

(resending to list) LGTM2 to go directly to removal (with a flag of course). Also, keep an eye on enterprise feedback since they are a blind area. I took a look at code in github, and there was mostly just documentation, including the Portuguese chrome.com, and I also saw a page from

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM CORS requirement on ID assertion endpoint

LGTM3 I'm also a bit concerned with the risk, but it sounds like you have it under control and will be able to handle the rollout appropriately. /Daniel On 2024-03-18 07:42, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 actually.. On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:40 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate the includeShadowRoots argument on DOMParser

I don't think we, in general, want open ended deprecations. Nowadays they are a bit more hidden in DevTools, but they used to be a source of console spam and cause warning fatigue. Many also don't react to deprecations unless there is some kind of timeline so I really prefer there to be a set

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

One more question, is requestAnimationFrame affected at all or will that still work just as before? /Daniel On 2024-03-13 17:32, Daniel Bratell wrote: This intent has ended up in a strange state in the chromestatus tool, missing various flags I would have expected. Is that because

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

This intent has ended up in a strange state in the chromestatus tool, missing various flags I would have expected. Is that because the intent predates some of the chromestatus updates or because it started as an origin trial? If so, maybe the simplest is to refile it, or can it be made to be a

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

LGTM3 (Mozilla has responded that they think this makes sense) /Daniel On 2024-03-06 22:02, 'Sunggook Chue' via blink-dev wrote: Request for Mozilla: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/996. Yes, the new feature already works on Safari. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Standard-compliant pseudo-element argument for getComputedStyle & KeyframeEffect

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-13 16:19, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:59 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:36 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:36:07 AM UTC-4 Noam Rosenthal wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: RegExp duplicate named capture groups

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-11 17:16, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:00 PM Shu-yu Guo wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:26 AM Mike Taylor wrote: On 3/11/24 6:49 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 4:26 PM Mike

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

Just to ask what is probably a FAQ to get it out here... The Service Worker timeout is 30 seconds right, so regardless of how heavy the calculations are, a service worker and its associated calculations will die in 30 seconds after the user closes the associated page? I ask because while

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSSImportRule.styleSheet

(resending to list since I accidentally dropped it) Hi, We discussed this intent in the API Owner meeting, and I ended up with some questions. Question 1: What is the current behaviour in the case where the specification wants us to return null? Question 2: I understand that Gecko

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: 'pageswap' event

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-03-06 16:58, 'Khushal Sagar' via blink-dev wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:32 AM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: What's going on with the tests?

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to experiment - WebAssembly JavaScript Promise Integration (update)

The policy has changed a bit to accept a direct extension, without any breaks, where we previously didn't so it's possible the documentation you saw was outdated. The enforced break was to prevent burn-in that would make it painful to do suitable changes or drop an idea, but it seems that has

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Used color scheme root scrollbars

Mike didn't refer to the TAG review or browser signals, but the review steps in chromestatus. The intent should request, privacy, security, enterprise, and the other steps there. I agree that this lives in the borderland between user agent UI and a web visible change so some shortcuts might

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Clipboard API: Svg

LGTM Not sure if it's LGTM2 or LGTM4 since that depends on if the 2021 LGTMS still apply, but this still seems ready to ship. /Daniel On 2024-02-23 19:14, Chris Harrelson wrote: My LGTM still stands, and have recorded it in the tool. On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:01 AM 'Anupam Snigdha' via

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: setHTMLUnsafe and parseHTMLUnsafe

Never mind. My mail was backed up and I hadn't seen that it was already approved, thus no longer on the list. All is well, and my LGTM1 is actually a bonus LGTM4 /Daniel On 2024-02-21 17:23, Daniel Bratell wrote: This doesn't show up in the shipping status in chromestatus so it's

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: setHTMLUnsafe and parseHTMLUnsafe

This doesn't show up in the shipping status in chromestatus so it's not on our radar. My LGTM1 still stands, but it can easily be forgotten, and we might miss some important review step, if it's not there. /Daniel On 2024-02-16 18:14, Joey Arhar wrote: > Is this the relevant explainer

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: setHTMLUnsafe and parseHTMLUnsafe

LGTM1 /Daniel On 2024-02-16 18:14, Joey Arhar wrote: > Is this the relevant explainer (referenced from the PR below): https://github.com/WICG/sanitizer-api/blob/main/explainer.md Yes, as far as I know. > This seems positive, right? Whoops, meant to put positive. I updated the chromestatus.

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

On 2024-02-17 03:22, Mason Freed wrote: On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 5:39 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: Just thinking about possible use cases for mutation events, do you know what the browser extension situation is? Those might have legitimate reason to react to page changes and maybe

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

LGTM3 but don't forget to verify that the chromestatus NAs for security and privacy are eventually confirmed. (I don't see how it could not be, but they are experts) /Daniel On 2024-02-14 19:19, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:03 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Standardized CSS zoom

: LGTM2 On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:53 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: > > LGTM1 > > /Daniel > > On 2024-02-09 20:24, 'Yotam Hacohen' via blink-dev wrote: > > > > On Thursday, Februa

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Standardized CSS zoom

LGTM1 /Daniel On 2024-02-09 20:24, 'Yotam Hacohen' via blink-dev wrote: On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:46:00 PM UTC-8 Domenic Denicola wrote: On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 10:55 AM Yotam Hacohen wrote: Hey Dominic and thanks for the input! On Sunday, February 4, 2024

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate Mutation Events

Just thinking about possible use cases for mutation events, do you know what the browser extension situation is? Those might have legitimate reason to react to page changes and maybe some of them use the old events? /Daniel On 2024-02-09 21:35, Mason Freed wrote: On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:52 

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS paint-order for non-SVG text

I didn't really get how it affects non-SVG text. The documentation and the examples are all for SVG. Is there HTML text that is also a mix of stroke, fill and marker blitting? /Daniel On 2024-02-08 10:14, Fredrik Söderquist wrote: On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:48 AM Stefan Zager wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Private network access checks for navigation requests: warning-only mode

LGTM3 to add a warning. Normally we don't like open ended deprecation warnings, end, which this is, but this should be a rare warning, except possibly in enterprise situations, and even there, warnings might trigger some feedback from a group that is normally not aware of upcoming changes.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: New ALPS code point

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-02-05 11:47, Domenic Denicola wrote: LGTM2 On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 5:38 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 Thanks for including these values in the I-D. On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:17 PM Victor Tan wrote: the code point PR is merged. Feel

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

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-01-31 17:53, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:00 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 10:27:50 AM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: Contact emailsjap...@chromium.org, nrosent...@chromium.org

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS light-dark() Color Function

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-01-30 21:23, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 1/30/24 1:11 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM1 On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:08 AM Rune Lillesveen wrote: Contact emails futh...@chromium.org Explainer None Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Allow Cross-Origin Subframes to Send Automatic Beacons

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-01-24 11:45, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 11:17:35 AM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks Liam. This seems fine to me given that both parties need to opt in. LGTM1 On 1/22/24 6:10 PM, Liam Brady wrote: Hi Mike,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

Unreliable use counters sound scary. We base a lot of decisions off those. So far they have only been shown to over-count though? But still, would be great if someone could get a grip on that bug and either fix it or make us understand what is going on. For this feature, what is the status of

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: document.caretPositionFromPoint API

t wrapped line. definition: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/editing/visible_position.h;l=39-54 Thanks, Siye On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 6:35:14 AM UTC-8 Daniel Bratell wrote: This is not directly related to this one functio

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: document.caretPositionFromPoint API

This is not directly related to this one function but more to the whole API. I quickly skimmed the spec and I could not find out how it handles line breaks which make caret positions ambigious? When you press the END key at one line, and the HOME key at the following line your caret DOM

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to implement and ship: blocking=render on inline scripts

On 2024-01-10 18:27, Noam Rosenthal wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:25 PM Michal Mocny wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:55 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: Great, perhaps the best way forward is with a flag that's starting as "stable" from the get go and we can later

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Use specific fetch destination for JSON/CSS modules

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-01-10 17:46, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: LGTM2, thanks for fixing this! On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 5:03 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:58 PM Nicolò Ribaudo wrote: Yes I made a mistake in the description. The destination for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Pseudo Element ::backdrop inheriting from Originating Element

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-01-10 16:41, Rick Byers wrote: Given how trivial and niche this is and that WebKit and Gecko have both shipped this without any apparent compat fallout, I agree the compat risk is very low. I'm ok treating it as a bugfix, but please circle back here (and consider using

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to implement and ship: blocking=render on inline scripts

LGTM1 - I agree that this is small enough to just proceed. /Daniel On 2024-01-10 16:40, Noam Rosenthal wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:32 PM Rick Byers wrote: Hi Noam, This seems pretty trivial to me. The spec change is trivial and presumably any review feedback will only be

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove import assertion 'assert' syntax

LGTM3 for the plan as outlined by Mike and Philip. /Daniel On 2023-12-14 10:18, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 6:10 PM Shu-yu Guo wrote: On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: LGTM2 for Mike's plan of deprecating for 3 milestones, doing

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSSKeyframesRule.length

LGTM2 I would recommend a flag but given Philip's arguments I'll not consider it an absolute requirement. /Daniel On 2023-12-13 15:28, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: LGTM1 with or without a feature flag. I'm comfortable to LGTM this even without a flag because the length property was exposed in

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Third-party cookie deprecation exemption heuristics

While this is approved, I do have a followup question about: > we intend to eventually retire these heuristics as alternative solutions become widely used, subject to further feasibility analysis. In many other plans there have been dates or milestones mentioned, and even though they have

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Async Clipboard API: Allow empty ClipboardItem during read

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2023-11-29 18:01, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:27 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 This seems to reduce interop risk. Thanks! On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:45:00 PM UTC+1 snianu wrote: Contact emails

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document rules, response header, eagerness

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-11-23 10:11, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 These all seem like useful improvements! :) On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 8:14 PM Jeremy Roman wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:10 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:33 AM Jeremy Roman wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS supports() condition for @import

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2023-11-29 17:45, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:40 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:34 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: I wonder if we should hold off on adding @import support until such a solution emerges. On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience - Do Not Disable Cookie Setting in ReportEvent until 3PCD (Chrome - 120)

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2023-11-21 16:49, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 11/21/23 2:52 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 Thanks for the explanation!! On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:49 PM Garrett Tanzer wrote: > Can you explain more how this would help with adoption? Allowing for cookies on the

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS pages with Cache-control: no-store and Back/Forward Cache

Thanks for getting the security people to weigh in on this because that was really the main question for me. And it will still be controllable by a finch flag. LGTM1 dependent on there being a published document outlining the options for web developers (i.e. the document you are already

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate & Remove: Third-Party Cookies

You say Q1 2024, but do you know a more exact date? I ask because we are entering the holiday freeze period when companies do no changes whatsoever and even if this makes a site want to fix something, they might not be able to until some time into the quarter. I also think it might be good to

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

LGTM4 (yes, a bonus LGTM since I felt ninja'd by Mike and I think this will be a nice addition to the web platform) /Daniel On 2023-11-08 20:42, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM3 On 11/8/23 12:13 PM, Alex Russell wrote: +1 to the evidence from OT being persuasive. LGTM2 On Wednesday, November 8,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-palette property animation

Hi, could you please request signals from the other vendors? https://bit.ly/blink-signals will tell you how they work. Also, you may want to file a TAG review, or give them a FYI or let us know why that is not necessary. /Daniel On 2023-11-08 13:56, 'Munira Tursunova' via blink-dev wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU timestamp queries

LGTM2 100 microseconds sound very coarse for this, but I guess that just means they have to average data over many frames. And if they are happy, I'm happy. /Daniel On 2023-11-08 09:41, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 Thanks for working through this issue!! On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:34 AM Domenic

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: VideoEncoderConfig.contentHint

They seem to be in state "preparing" which is the stage before they are actually requested. The system is a bit new so maybe there is some confusing UI or bug, but they are not yet requested. jrobbins, do you know what might have gone awry? /Daniel On 2023-11-08 05:04, 'Eugene Zemtsov' via

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS spelling and grammar features

LGTM2 This one could use a ping in the mozilla standards position issue like that other one. /Daniel On 2023-11-07 01:58, Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks - LGTM1 On 11/6/23 7:27 PM, Stephen Chenney wrote: Thanks Mike. On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:22 AM Mike Taylor wrote: Hi Stephen,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: No-Vary-Search Hint for Prefetch Speculation Rules

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-11-07 01:57, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 11/1/23 9:55 AM, Liviu Tinta wrote: Contact emails dome...@chromium.org, jbro...@chromium.org, liviuti...@chromium.org Explainer

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: No-Vary-Search support in navigation prefetch cache

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-11-07 01:57, Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks Liviu. I've spent some time today reviewing the explainer and spec, and find the use cases compelling. LGTM1 to ship. A non-blocking request would be to add the security & privacy considerations from the explainer into the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Highlight Inheritance

LGTM2 You may want to ping the Mozilla standards position issue and let them know that we are close to shipping. It looks like they forgotten it. /Daniel On 2023-11-06 16:43, Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks for the detailed explanation of compat and for filing a TAG review. The risk of breakage

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

LGTM3 but attend to Rick's comment below before shipping. (Fantasia/Kent: It should be possible to test the implementation using the flags the WPT bots use to test so I assume Fantasia can test it with an appropriate flag and new enough build?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to ship: The Login Status API and its use in FedCM

Hi, I just have a couple of questions without having read through the intent in detail. You say "Our goal is to open this up to other websites in the future.", but what does that mean? Is there some kind of web site restriction today? Not creating a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Session API: enterpictureinpicture action

LGTM2 (For some reason your chromestatus entry has two "Enterprise" and no "Debuggability" shipping bullets, @jrobbins?) /Daniel On 2023-10-13 09:33, 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev wrote: Last position from Mozilla is still "defer" despite developers asking for reconsiderations over the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Accordion pattern using name attribute on elements

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-10-11 16:36, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 Thanks for the compat analysis! :) On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:28:03 AM UTC+2 David Baron wrote: On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 6:30 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:04 PM David Baron

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

I see that various mandatory steps in chromestatus (privacy,security,enterprise,debuggability,testing) seems to be unstarted. It is possible they were made mandatory after you create the entry, but it would be good if you could get them started now at least. Also, it's unfortunate that TAG

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: HTMLSelectElement showPicker()

LGTM1 (dependent on the PR landing) Looks like the spec text is more or less complete with no remaining possible showstoppers. I do find it both amusing and a bit Kafkaesque that the web community seems to have a process where the spec waits for implementers and implementers (at least us)

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Syntax for registered Custom Properties

LGTM1 (Privacy and Security steps in Chromestatus are not completed but they are unlikely to affect anything) /Daniel On 2023-10-04 12:23, Rune Lillesveen wrote: On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:08 AM Rune Lillesveen wrote: Contact emails futh...@chromium.org,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unprefix -webkit-background-clip for "text" and make it an alias

% of the websites reported by that use counter, but found that all of them use *-box keywords, and only one uses -webkit-background-clip: content. So I think it's safe to remove support for old keywords. Hope it's more clear now. On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:55:53 PM UTC+2 Daniel Bratell wrote

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate TLS SHA-1 server signatures

LGTM2 (for the original request, just to be clear) I assume it will have the normal flag that will allow it to be turned off if our interpretation is incorrect, since it is so hard to measure with a high accuracy. /Daniel On 2023-09-26 18:33, David Benjamin wrote: To clarify, I meant that

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CaptureStartFocusBehavior enum value "focus-capturing-application"

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-09-26 11:28, 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev wrote: I'm happy to answer the remaining questions if any. On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 7:13 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 5:45 PM François Beaufort wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: DTLS ClientHello extension permutation (WebRTC)

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-09-27 12:02, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:50 AM Philipp Hancke wrote: Am Mi., 27. Sept. 2023 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Yoav Weiss : On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:47 PM 'David Adrian' via blink-dev wrote: Great

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unprefix -webkit-background-clip for "text" and make it an alias

It allows to use the unprefixed version for background-clip: text and makes -webkit-background-clip an alias for background-clip. Also, it drops support for non-suffixed keywords (content, padding and border) for better round-trip with alias. Can you clarify exactly what this means? I'm

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Change SVGClipPathElement to inherit from SVGElement

Aligning all the browsers is a good thing. Risk seems small enough to just do it. LGTM1 /Daniel On 2023-09-22 12:00, Fredrik Söderquist wrote: Contact emails f...@opera.com Specification https://www.w3.org/TR/css-masking-1/#InterfaceSVGClipPathElement Summary

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH)

We are fine with being flexible with the details when the defaults don't work out, but every field/question has an underlying purpose that we try to satisfy through some means. Sometimes some fields might seem superfluous, but the explainer field is one that is always valuable. The

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: WebAssembly JS String Builtins

 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: Do you plan to run it as a finch experiment or do you have partners prepared for an Origin Trial? /Daniel On 2023-09-12 21:24, 'Emanuel Ziegler' via blink-dev wrote: Dear API Owners, Many use cases for WasmGC require calling

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Payment handler minimal header UX

LGTM2 (Also not sure you need this approval, but you can have mine as well) /Daniel On 2023-09-13 16:46, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 (I'm not sure you need our approvals to ship this UX change, but you can have mine). On 9/8/23 7:09 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: *Contact emails

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: WebAssembly JS String Builtins

Do you plan to run it as a finch experiment or do you have partners prepared for an Origin Trial? /Daniel On 2023-09-12 21:24, 'Emanuel Ziegler' via blink-dev wrote: Dear API Owners, Many use cases for WasmGC require calling JS functions or WebAPIs frequently.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Japanese Phrase Line Breaking

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-09-13 17:14, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: LGTM1 If there is feedback on the TAG review or Mozilla issue while this feature is on its way to stable, can you loop back to this thread? On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:01 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: Thanks for investigating

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

:45 Daniel Bratell wrote: So my assumption is the pessimistic one that most sites won't notice this policy change even if we publish posts about it. And even if users and sites can survive lost cookies, it might still be a disrupt

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS pages with Cache-control: no-store and Back/Forward Cache

in the last month. The reply below covers a few overlapping topics that were brought up in this thread by Yoav Weiss and Daniel Bratell. On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 at 03:03, Mike Taylor wrote: Thanks for the additional analysis. Another question I have, if a site sends: |"Cache-Control: no-

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

r popular sites. Please let me know if this plan sounds good and I will update the chromestatus description accordingly. On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 2:34:39 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: That sounds good! Considering that the number in the use counter is already so low,

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

In addition to Alex's question, I also noticed that you answered the web-platform-tests with a "no", which is a bit unexpected to me. Is there a reason this cannot or won't be tested in web-platform-tests? /Daniel On 2023-08-30 18:03, Alex Russell wrote: Hey Eugene, I'm a little worried

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS pages with Cache-control: no-store and Back/Forward Cache

In this whole discussion I am missing input from web developers. They must have expectations and opinions on these flags, but what do we know about their expectations and opinons? What is best industry practices? Is there a way to get more of that kind of input? /Daniel On 2023-07-31 02:59,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Read Chrome device attributes

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-30 17:38, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM1 On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:03 PM 'Sergii Bykov' via blink-dev wrote: Hello colleagues, As discussed, I added images to the explainer with examples from ChromeOS of how a managed app and a managed setting look

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: SVGImageElement.crossOrigin attribute.

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-30 16:24, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 to ship, with a base flag to ensure we can rollback if needed. On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 6:16 PM Dale Curtis wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:41 AM Dale Curtis wrote: On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 7:36 PM Yoav Weiss

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: scripting feature

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-30 17:02, Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: LGTM1 Thanks for catching up on this feature. Cheers, Rego On 26/08/2023 17:56, Luke wrote: Contact emails lukewarlow...@gmail.com , l...@warlow.dev

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

I think those are the ones that are hard to manually trigger while working in the debugger. /Daniel On 2023-08-26 19:30, PhistucK wrote: I guess all of them would be good. Not really why only a few pseudo-classes are listed there... ☆*PhistucK* On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 6:18 PM Joey Arhar

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Make URL parser to not decode percent-encoded ASCII character in URL's path

Compatibility is nice. LGTM3, but note Mike's request /Daniel On 2023-08-11 17:15, Mike Taylor wrote: I'm having a hard time assessing the risk, despite the very low usage (it has doubled since the original email was sent - but still very low) and other browsers shipping it. That said,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: prefers-reduced-transparency feature

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-09 17:56, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 8/1/23 8:13 PM, Luke wrote: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/881 I've filed a tag review (hopefully filled it all out correctly) On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 00:03:46 UTC+1 Chris Harrelson wrote: Hi Luke,

  1   2   3   >