LGTM3
On 1/24/24 11:24 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:
LGTM2
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 4:40:55 PM UTC+1 Rick Byers wrote:
It would be great to get an official response from WebKit and
Mozilla to make sure we understand their position, but I don't
think we should block
LGTM2
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 4:40:55 PM UTC+1 Rick Byers wrote:
> It would be great to get an official response from WebKit and Mozilla to
> make sure we understand their position, but I don't think we should block
> further on it. I understand why they might have concerns given their
It would be great to get an official response from WebKit and Mozilla to
make sure we understand their position, but I don't think we should block
further on it. I understand why they might have concerns given their
engine's preference for embeds being anonymous. In Chromium we've been
consistent
Fyi; I've retargeted this launch to M123 since it seems clear it won't get
the necessary Blink approvals in time for M122 (which has already branched).
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 11:07:56 AM UTC-5 Stephen McGruer wrote:
> Sounds great:
>
>
Sounds great:
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/304
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/964
Will update if we get any reply :)
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 10:25, Mike Taylor wrote:
> I think erring on the side of requesting a signal here is a good idea. :)
> On
I think erring on the side of requesting a signal here is a good idea. :)
On 1/17/24 8:33 AM, Stephen Mcgruer wrote:
API owners: It wasn't clear to me if I should still be formally
requesting signals from WebKit and Gecko in the case of a change to an
API (WebAuthn) where the change has been
API owners: It wasn't clear to me if I should still be formally requesting
signals from WebKit and Gecko in the case of a change to an API (WebAuthn)
where the change has been ratified + landed by the associated Working
Group. The change is in some ways 'minor', but in other ways it is
significant
