Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature: Referrer Policy for Attributionsrc Requests

LGTM1. This looks like a small, well-considered change that makes the platform more consistent. I agree the compat risks are small. >From what I understand, fields like TAG review and standards-positions for other browsers should be covered by the larger umbrella feature, so we shouldn't block

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature: Prevent Coalescing of Headers

This feature seems problematic from a web architecture point of view. I have added a comment on https://github.com/WICG/attribution-reporting-api/issues/1202 . Getting full review from parties like the TAG or other browsers probably does not make sense for this kind of a small change to the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate Mutation Events

LGTM2. This is extremely exciting. I hope that in a year, the deprecation process is fully complete, and we get to enjoy deleting a lot of code/specs/maybe tests. I agree with your instinct to go to 100% directly with the 127 release. On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:18 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >

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

https://github.com/WICG/translation-api?tab=readme-ov-file#streaming-input-support> for now. > > 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: >&

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Multi-argument alt text in CSS Generated Content

LGTM3. It's a bit sad that there's no spec that actually matches the 3/3 shipping implementations, but oh well... Hopefully MDN documentation and the like will fill in that gap. On Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 6:01:17 AM UTC+9 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:49 PM

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

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 > on fedback from the WG, and at least one partner was satisfied with the > shape and functionality. > > LGTM1 > On 5/14/24 8:05 AM, Guido

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

Hi Jiaming, Per our process , we give the TAG and other vendors at least one month to comment on changes. (This is why it is recommended to start these reviewers earlier, before sending the Intent to Ship.) So it

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

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 and this bug I filed on Chrome Status a year

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

On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 6:43 AM Alex Russell wrote: > 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. > Did you see the explainer linked in the original post? I'll post it

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Stable Bare Declarations (@nest)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 6:14 PM Anders Hartvoll Ruud wrote: > Contact emails > > andr...@chromium.org > > Specification > > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting-1/#nest-rule > > Summary > > CSS Nesting initially shipped with an interesting quirk that would cause > bare declarations that come

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

Contact emailsdome...@chromium.org, fer...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/translation-api/blob/main/README.md SpecificationNone yet, although the explainer does contain IDL which could help a bit Summary This proposal introduces a new

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URL.parse()

LGTM2 On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:50 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM1 > > Thanks for catching us up here! :) > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:20 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> Thanks. One more thing: our process requires all feat

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URL.parse()

nks, I've done them. > > On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 3:53:27 PM UTC+9 Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> Can you request privacy, security, enterprise, debuggability, and testing >> reviews on Chrome Status? >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:36 PM Jack J wrote: &g

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebGLObject Web IDL superinterface

LGTM1 On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:36 AM Ken Russell wrote: > Yes. N/As and explanations have been requested for all of these now. > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 7:37 PM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> Can you request Privacy, Security, Enterprise, Debuggability, and Testing

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URL.parse()

Can you request privacy, security, enterprise, debuggability, and testing reviews on Chrome Status? On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:36 PM Jack J wrote: > Contact emailsj...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://url.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-url-parse > > Design docs >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebGLObject Web IDL superinterface

Can you request Privacy, Security, Enterprise, Debuggability, and Testing reviews by following the procedure on ChromeStatus? Most of them should be pretty simple, or even N/A, for this feature. But we're not supposed to give API owner approvals until they're underway. On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM: Credentialed requests will no longer send SameSite=Strict cookies

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:19 AM Christian Biesinger wrote: > Contact emails > > cbiesin...@chromium.org > > > Explainer > > See summary > > > Specification > > https://fedidcg.github.io/FedCM/#fetch-identity-assertion > I wasn't able to find the part of the spec that talks about which cookies

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

LGTM3. Thanks Yoav for digging in to the WebKit position! On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 3:05:22 AM UTC+9 Gabriel Brito wrote: > WebKit decided to implement the feature behind a feature flag by Jan 2023 > for web compat. Since then, we have collaborated at the W3C in the Web Apps > WG and

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

Mason, can you confirm that what is shipping is accurately represented by the specification field, i.e., CSS anchor positioning only? In particular, the HTML anchor="" attribute is not included in this I2S? On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 5:01 AM Daniel Herr

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: toJSON for GeolocationCoordinates and GeolocationPosition

LGTM3 On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 3:37 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 - seems like a trivial, useful addition. > On 4/16/24 2:02 PM, slightlyoff via Chromestatus wrote: > > LGTM1 > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove: Stop sending blur events on element removal

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:33 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: > Contact emailsnrosent...@chromium.org, d...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > A few paragraphs, including e.g. example code and how it behaves differently before/after the change, would help clarify this for web developers. > > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: RegExp modifiers

LGTM2 On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:11 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1 - looks like a useful addition already supported in a number of > other RegExp engines. > On 3/27/24 11:38 AM, 'Shu-yu Guo' via blink-dev wrote: > > Contact emails s...@chromium.org, pth...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Allow top layer elements to be nested within popovers

LGTM1. I think there is a small compat risk here but it should be manageable via the combination of: low popover + dialog usage so far, presumably by actively-updated sites, and a Finch flag if something breaks really badly. On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 2:58:51 AM UTC+9 Mason Freed wrote:

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: visualViewport.onscrollend Support

LGTM1, this is a very small change that IMO does not require any signals or TAG review. It's just bringing this event in line with all other events on the platform. (It would be cool if there were some automated way of preventing this kind of omission in the future.) On Wednesday, March 27,

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

LGTM3. With my HTML Standard editor hat on, I agree that this area does not benefit from tight specification. However, in the past we've seen web developers be pretty confused by what each browser's behavior is, for this and other inactive-tab / offscreen-iframe / etc. throttling behaviors.

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

LGTM3 On Wednesday, March 27, 2024 at 4:45:08 AM UTC+9 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 3/26/24 1:25 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 once the fix > to > the above issue lands. > > On Monday, March 18, 2024 at 7:56:52 

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

Updates during an Origin Trial do not require re-approval. You might want to be careful about how it impacts existing users of the trial, but that's up to your team to decide. On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 2:12 PM 'Ming-Ying Chung' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi API owners, > > We

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

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:27 PM Ari Chivukula wrote: > Contact emails > > aric...@chromium.org, wanderv...@chromium.org, johann...@chromium.org, > rosh...@google.com > > Specification > > https://privacycg.github.io/saa-non-cookie-storage/ > This appears to be (a rendered version of) an

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document picture-in-picture: add option to hide back-to-tab button

Awesome, thanks for the quick turnaround time! With that change, LGTM1. On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:16 AM Tommy Steimel wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! Updated in > https://github.com/WICG/document-picture-in-picture/pull/116 > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:53 PM Domenic Denicola >

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

; field. > > On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9:20:57 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev < >> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> We do have a runtime feature flag 'WritingSuggestions &g

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

6672872ad6d> a Finch flag, unless you turn that off :). So I think this is just a matter of updating the Chrome Status entry. > > On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 6:55:48 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 2:08:28 AM UTC+9 Step

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

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 2:08:28 AM UTC+9 Stephanie Zhang wrote: *Contact emails* *sa...@microsoft.com* , *dan...@microsoft.com* , *stephanie.zh...@microsoft.com* *Explainer* *https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/WritingSuggestions/explainer.md*

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document picture-in-picture: add option to hide back-to-tab button

I found an issue with the API design here that might result in a backward-incompatible change: https://github.com/WICG/document-picture-in-picture/issues/115 With my spec mentor hat on, sorry for not catching it sooner! On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 2:12 AM 'Tommy Steimel' via blink-dev <

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

; On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 16:52, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> For what milestones do you want to extend the experiment for? >> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:39 PM Matt Giuca wrote: >> >>> Contact emailsloubr...@google.com, glen...@chromium.org >>&g

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

and Francois to get this feature out, chiming in >>>> >>>> In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you >>>>> want to go to 50% stable. >>>>> >>>> I agree, I'd consider this feature ready to ship, we have enough &

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

Assuming that change gets appropriate spec updates and web platform tests coverage, that should be no problem. Thanks to you and the security team for looking out for our users! On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:26 AM 'Khushal Sagar' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hey folks, > >

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

gt; > So I'd perhaps classify backwards compatibility as low-risk? > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:32 AM Noam Rosenthal > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:57 AM Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Dan for raising the compat conce

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

Thanks Dan for raising the compat concerns here. It seems like a mistake that the original Intent says "None" for that, and I think we need to get that section of the Chrome Status entry fleshed out before considering approvals here. What I'm hearing so far is that we think the compat risks might

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

For what milestones do you want to extend the experiment for? On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:39 PM Matt Giuca wrote: > Contact emailsloubr...@google.com, glen...@chromium.org > , mgi...@chromium.org, bre...@chromium.org > > Explainer >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Document Render-Blocking

LGTM3 On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:35 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:23 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> On 3/6/24 11:00 AM, Vladimir Levin wrote: >> >> Re failing tests: >> The flag is currently in "test" status >>

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

gt; our team has been following a 1/50/100 pattern (we received feedback for > other features that fewer intermediate steps was desirable for web devs). > For blink purpose, I'd suggest we switch this to an 'Intent to ship'. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 5:06 PM Domenic Denicola > w

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: PNA permission prompt for non-fetch requests

Thank you; that helps a lot! On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 1:34 AM Yifan Luo wrote: > I updated the name to "Content Security Policy for PNA permission prompt". > > Intent to Prototype: Content Security Policy for PNA permission prompt > > Contact emails...@chromium.org > > Explainer >

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

LGTM2. I appreciate Adam's careful attention to all portions of the process here, and also Alex's probing as to whether we're meeting the developer interest portion. Although this would be more of a slam-dunk if we were able to get that partner to comment publicly on their experience, I'm

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

In general, I think it's best to file a formal Intent to Ship if you want to go to 50% stable. To me it sounds like that might be reasonable here? I.e. you're fairly confident that the feature is a good idea to ship, but you want to do a more cautious rollout. I think many Intent to Ships go

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: PNA permission prompt for non-fetch requests

It's not clear what this intent or explainer means by "non-fetch requests". https://github.com/WICG/private-network-access/issues/129 On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:52 AM 'Yifan Luo' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails...@chromium.org > > Explainer >

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

I've raised a potentially-breaking spec issue which I'd like to get a conclusion on before LGTMing this: https://github.com/WICG/ua-client-hints/issues/355 On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 2:03:07 AM UTC+9 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:04 PM Vladimir Levin > wrote:

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

With my HTML editor hat on, I can confirm the spec PR looks good and only has editorial issues left. It fell between the cracks for 2 weeks; apologies for that. With my API Owner hat on, LGTM1. There are a few borderline aspects here: - Security review on ChromeStatus has not yet been

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Compression Dictionary Transport

This Intent did not show up on the API Owners dashboard, which probably explains the lack of responses. I'm unsure whether this is a bug in the dashboard, or if there's something on ChromeStatus that you need to do (e.g. some stage you need to set for extending the origin trial). LGTM to extend

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

LGTM2 On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:33 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > I see the main spec PR has landed and a small related Fetch PR is done. > Thanks all for doing that! > > LGTM1 > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 8:55 PM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> At the moment it

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:01 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo wrote: >> >>> Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! >>> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

plan to add user-agent specific reasons to the spec in the may-block > section. > This is the draft PR <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10154/files> > (have't added the explanation for each reason yet). > Is it okay to ship while we work on the follow-up PR? > You could ship

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove "window-placement" alias for permission and permission policy "window-management"

LGTM2 On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:20 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM1 > > Thanks for diving into the samples. Sounds like the breakage risk here is > indeed low. > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 8:15 PM Brad Triebwasser > wrote: > >> Sure, I checked 10 unique origins

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Streams API: ReadableStream async iteration

LGTM3!! On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:07 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > Thanks! > > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:03 AM Mattias Buelens < > mattias.buel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Chris, they're all blue now. >> >> Op woensdag 21 februari 2024 om 18:09:55 UTC+1 schreef chri...@google.com

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

LGTM1. I recall these methods getting lots of good design review and discussion in the PR, from multiple parties. I'm excited to see them ship. Thanks Luke for spotting the trusted types interaction, and fixing it! On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 2:15:09 AM UTC+9 Joey Arhar wrote: > > Is

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

LGTM1. I appreciate the detailed explainers and well-reviewed spec updates. I noticed the TAG review field was missing, but it seems the TAG review for the base feature is still ongoing since 2022-03-24, so I agree with the decision to not

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

At the moment it appears the spec is not complete, as a possibly-large chunk of behavior (regarding request/response reuse that modifies the behavior of fetch() inside service worker fetch handlers) needs to have its spec written:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CJK punctuation kerning: the CSS `text-spacing-trim` property

LGTM1 On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:42:36 PM UTC+9 Koji Ishii wrote: > Hi Philip, thanks for the questions. Please see replies inline: > > Thanks for linking the tests, judging just by the test names it looks like >> many combinations of languages and fonts are tested. >> > > Yes, many

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

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 10:55 AM Yotam Hacohen wrote: > Hey Dominic and thanks for the input! > > On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-8 Domenic Denicola wrote: > > It's always exciting to move such an old feature from nonstandard to > standardized! > > On Sat

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:51 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 12:26, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola >>> wrote: >&g

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a significant >> blocker for the Intent at this point. >> >> On the tests and i

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

;> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4770594>. >>> This might be a basic question, but is there any difference on how to >>> call the API from users' perspective, when the exposed attribute is an >>> interface vs object? >>> &

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: field-sizing CSS property

The HTML PR is merged; thanks Philip, and Simon from Mozilla, for their reviews. LGTM2! On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 9:08 AM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > I'm not sure how long it will take until the HTML PR is merged. > Involving a WebKit people sounds helpful. I'll try it. > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at

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

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 free to take a look again. Thanks. >> >> On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at

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

It's always exciting to move such an old feature from nonstandard to standardized! On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:18 AM 'Yotam Hacohen' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emailsyo...@google.com > > ExplainerNone > FWIW, I think the contents of

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

LGTM1 On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 6:53 AM David Bokan wrote: > Contact emailsbo...@chromium.org, khushalsa...@chromium.org, > nrosent...@chromium.org, vmp...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/view-transitions/blob/main/cross-doc-explainer.md > >

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial : HTMLVideoElement-specific Prefixed Fullscreen API

LGTM2. Please be sure to update Chrome Status with the deprecation trial timelines and removal milestones so that data gets fed into the feature dashboard, beta blog posts, etc. On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 7:35 AM Thomas Guilbert wrote: > Thank you! > > I will be adding an enterprise policy to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: WebRTC encoded transform - Modify Metadata functions

to%20Ship%2C%20to%20give%20the%20TAG%20sufficient%20time%20for%20meaningful%20feedback.>, that shouldn't be a problem. > > BTW, can you send the LGTM again? I forgot to cc blink-dev in my initial > reply and the LGTM was sent only to my email address. > LGTM! > On Thu, Feb 1,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Element Reflection

Very exciting to see this! On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 12:10 AM alice wrote: > Contact emails > al...@igalia.com, meredi...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > https://github.com/WICG/aom/blob/gh-pages/aria-reflection-explainer.md#reflecting-element-references > > Specification > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: WebRTC encoded transform - Modify Metadata functions

It's exciting to see the Origin Trial system working as intended, giving us time to get in-the-field feedback but also stay responsive to ongoing standards discussions about changing the shape of the API. Recalling the requirements for extending an origin trial

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience Ad slot size in real-time bidding signals fetch and update more interest group fields

LGTM3 On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 4:10 AM Paul Jensen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:29 PM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 3:05 AM Paul Jensen >> wrote: >> >>> Contact emails >>> >>> pa

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience Ad slot size in real-time bidding signals fetch and update more interest group fields

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 3:05 AM Paul Jensen wrote: > Contact emails > > pauljen...@chromium.org > > > Explainer > > Ad slot size in real-time bidding signals fetch: > https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/928 > > Update more interest group fields: Already covered by explainer >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Call stacks in crash reports from unresponsive web pages

I agree with Dave's take on the importance of not including extension scripts themselves, and Rick's take on how it is OK to include extension-injected main world scripts. One additional interop concern that's worth highlighting here is that the stack trace format itself is not compatible across

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial : HTMLVideoElement-specific Prefixed Fullscreen API

es with a fullscreen button for Mux and PlayerJS, and they >>> behaved as expected on a build of Chrome without the APIs. The one site I >>> found using Clappr that had a fullscreen button did not work, both on the >>> custom build and the latest canary. >>> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial : HTMLVideoElement-specific Prefixed Fullscreen API

hings like "all sites using this code will be broken" or "all sites using this code will be slightly worse, but basically fine", or even "all sites using this open-source library will be broken, but we can send them a PR and that will create a clear upgrade path". >

Re: [blink-dev] New API owner: Domenic Denicola

aw Domenic give >> a talk at the NYC.js meetup and have been a fan since). >> On 1/21/24 4:24 AM, Yuki Shiino wrote: >> >> Congratulations!!! >> >> >> 2024年1月20日(土) 17:44 Mathias Bynens : >> >>> Thanks and congratulations, Domenic! >>> >

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Deprecation Trial : HTMLVideoElement-specific Prefixed Fullscreen API

It would be very exciting to clean this up! I have some questions that might help clarify the cost-benefit analysis. On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 6:43 AM Thomas Guilbert wrote: > Contact emails > > tguilb...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > None > > Specification > >

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

do a good job. Having reviewed the spec change, I'm confident >> that exposing more information is technically straightforward if the need >> arises. >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 1:59 AM Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Extension of WebDriver command for clicking on FedCM dialogs

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:42 PM 'Zachary Tan' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails > > tanzach...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > None > > Specification > > https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/pull/510 > > Design docs > > None > > Summary > > This changes one of our existing

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

2023年11月10日(金) 17:14 Yoav Weiss : > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 2:46 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:44 AM Yoav Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for working on this, as I'm enthusiastically supportive of >

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

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:44 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Thanks for working on this, as I'm enthusiastically supportive of tackling > this use case! > > One thing I wish y'all have done, and that I haven't seen any evidence of > (but please correct me if I'm wrong) is discuss this design with the

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

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 5:42 PM François Beaufort wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 7:39 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> On 10/30/23 12:59 PM, Corentin Wallez wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:19 AM Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >>> >

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

Yes, I confirm that I have no more concerns at this point! On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > API owners, > > I think this intent is ready for API owner approvals. > > * Domenic's concern was resolved by dropping '' from the scope of the > intent. > * We found we didn't need

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

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:21 PM François Beaufort wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:05 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:21 PM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev < >> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >> &g

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

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:21 PM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails > > fbeauf...@google.com, cwal...@google.com > > Explainer > > https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/614 > > Specification > > https://gpuweb.github.io/gpuweb/#timestamp > >

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

t this soon". So I'd appreciate it if the API Owners could, in their next discussion of this topic, resolve whether or not Chromium supports :state() being added to the HTML Standard, even before any other engine ships it. > > >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:55 AM Chris Ha

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

plicity, there may be other concerns about reaching cross-browser consensus. As you noted, it seems there is conditional consensus on the most-technically-complex ruby + rb + rtc model, if we do go that route. > > Jeffrey > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 1:07 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > &

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

Thanks Chris and the API Owners for having this discussion! I am sympathetic to this being a hard problem with the strong potential to set a bad precedent. On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 3:00 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:59 AM Chris Harrelson > wrote: > >> The API owners

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

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:41 PM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > Contact emailstk...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#ruby-display > > Summary > > New CSS display property values, "ruby", "ruby-base", and "ruby-text", > are added. The default display

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

c (as we should for > all such feedback from anyone, of course!). > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:28 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > > > > 2023年10月4日(水) 8:16 Alex Russell : > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:16:53 AM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > >

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

2023年10月4日(水) 8:16 Alex Russell : > > > 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

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

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 in this API are very > strange and seem l

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

he one that automatically calls destroy() for you: https://github.com/WICG/close-watcher/blob/main/README.md#requesting-close-yourself . > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:43:49 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> Contact emailsjap...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium

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

Contact emailsjap...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium.org, jar...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/WICG/close-watcher/blob/main/README.md Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9462 Summary "Close requests" are a new concept that encompasses user requests to close something

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Speculation Rules - Document rules, response header

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org, adith...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md#document-rules Specification https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/speculation-rules.html Summary Two enhancements to speculation

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked >> issue <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2>, I &

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

ts, it seems like the currently-implemented >>> reasons don't match the spec. E.g. this test >>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-bfcache-reasons-stay.tentative.win

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

ons-stay.tentative.window.js> requires the reason to be "WebSocket", but the specification says "websocket" (lowercase). I couldn't find tests for the other three reasons... On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:04 PM Domenic Denicola wrote: > I have some questions about how well th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

I have some questions about how well the implementation here matches up with the spec. First, there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons interface defined in Chromium? The relevant attribute on PerformanceNavigationTiming returns object?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Inherit Base URL snapshot for about:blank and about:srcdoc, with about:blank inheriting from initiator, not parent.

Let me just say, with my HTML Standard editor hat on, that I am very excited for these changes. This area is currently a wasteland of non-interoperable behavior, broken specifications, and web-developer-expectations violations. The team has done some amazing work to figure out a model that works

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

I was the spec mentor for Yao's work on this feature, and am chiming in to provide the requested spec maturity summary

  1   2   >