Jeremy,

When do you hope to ship this?

Joe
Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | [email protected] |
 816-678-7195
*If an API's not documented it doesn't exist.*


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:51 AM Jeremy Roman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:33 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> LGTM to continue experimentation. Note that this would bring the OT to 11
>> milestones, which is approaching the limits of OT timelines.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:57 PM Jeremy Roman <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:18 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any current feedback from the OT up until now?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feedback on the speculation rules API itself has been relatively
>>> limited. We had one issue where server postprocessing incorrectly
>>> interpreted a <script> with a non-JavaScript type.
>>>
>>> Related to prefetch, we're aware of issues relating to how prefetch
>>> requests, especially anonymized prefetch requests (which emerge from a
>>> Google IP not necessarily in the exact same location and thus might affect
>>> GeoIP-dependent responses), can be easily identified by server software
>>> (and are working on updating the spec and implementation to send a clearer
>>> signal in the request headers) and how best for servers to indicate that a
>>> prefetch cannot be used without adverse side effects.
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 4:58:16 PM UTC+1 Jeremy Roman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Contact emails
>>>>>
>>>>> [email protected], [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> Explainer
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md
>>>>>
>>>>> Specification
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/speculation-rules.html
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/prefetch.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> Speculation Rules is a flexible syntax for defining what outgoing
>>>>> links are eligible to be prepared speculatively before navigation. It
>>>>> enables access to additional enhancements, such as use of a private
>>>>> prefetch proxy, where applicable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Participants in this trial can use this syntax to request prefetching
>>>>> of links they expect the user is likely to visit next.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a request to extend the previous experiment
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Cw-hOjT47qI/m/EObn9-4MAgAJ>.
>>>>> We would like to extend the experiment for milestones M98 to M101
>>>>> (inclusive), in order to continue to gather data as a partner makes
>>>>> improvements to their integration and to shave some of the rough edges off
>>>>> the feature. There is an ongoing early access program
>>>>> <https://github.com/buettner/private-prefetch-proxy/issues/15#issuecomment-952207477>
>>>>> to allow more publishers to receive IP anonymized traffic as we refine 
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> We now support "prefetch" rules and intend to deprecate
>>>>> "prefetch_with_subresources" (at least for now) during this extension.
>>>>> Cross-origin uncredentialed prefetch without IP anonymization is now
>>>>> supported.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a new addition of this extension, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, these are new since the previous extension.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Users can now enable access to IP anonymization from any origin through
>>>>> a Chrome setting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this setting applicable to all sites? Just prefetched ones?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This change landed recently. If the user enables extended preloading in
>>> Google Chrome, then any site can request prefetches which require IP
>>> anonymization. If only standard preloading is enabled, then any site can
>>> still be prefetched anonymously (subject to the other conditions on that),
>>> but only some sites can request it.
>>>
>>
>> Any documentation on that?
>>
>
> The support pages don't elaborate on this point, but the strings in the
> Clank settings do.
>
> They're defined here
> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:chrome/browser/ui/android/strings/android_chrome_strings.grd;l=348-389;drc=d18700ce0dc7050e430e65ffdad1ade446fe190e>.
> The short version reads:
>
> *Standard preloading*
> Some of the pages you visit are preloaded. Pages may be preloaded through
> Google servers when linked from a Google site.
>
> *Extended preloading*
> More pages are preloaded. Pages may be preloaded through Google servers
> when requested by other sites.
>
>
>> Internal analysis from the current experiment with significant
>>>>> improvement to the largest contentful paint time when successful. Though
>>>>> prefetching with subresources (NoStatePrefetch) provides some additional
>>>>> improvement, it incurs over a much higher byte cost on average. We believe
>>>>> that in most cases prefetching more possible outgoing navigation is
>>>>> typically a better tradeoff than also prefetching subresources, so we are
>>>>> focusing on shipping prefetch of the main resource. Many outbound
>>>>> navigations are currently ineligible due to cookies existing on the
>>>>> destination site, which motivates future improvements to allow sites to
>>>>> participate in uncredentialed prefetch through an additional opt-in. (I've
>>>>> requested clearance to release approximate numbers, but that hasn't been
>>>>> approved at this point.)
>>>>>
>>>>
> I've received clearance to unredact this, so here are some slightly more
> specific numbers:
>
> Internal analysis from the current experiment with Google Search shows
> approximately 400 ms of improvement to the largest contentful paint time
> when successful. Though prefetching with subresources (NoStatePrefetch)
> provides some additional improvement, it incurs over 3x the byte cost on
> average. We believe that in most cases prefetching more possible outgoing
> navigation is typically a better tradeoff than also prefetching
> subresources, so we are focusing on shipping prefetch of the main resource.
> Over half of the outbound navigations are currently ineligible due to
> cookies existing on the destination site, which motivates future
> improvements to allow sites to participate in uncredentialed prefetch
> through an additional opt-in.
>
> Blink component
>>>>>
>>>>> Internals>Preload
>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3EPreload>
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/611
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review status
>>>>>
>>>>> Complete (recommended followup review TBA)
>>>>>
>>>>> Risks
>>>>>
>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility
>>>>>
>>>>> Gecko: No signal
>>>>>
>>>>> WebKit: No signal
>>>>>
>>>>> Web developers: Past success with <link rel=prefetch>
>>>>> <https://web.dev/link-prefetch/> and libraries like QuickLink, and
>>>>> discussion with some partners suggests interest in this space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Goals for experimentation
>>>>>
>>>>> To gather feedback about the convenience of the Speculation Rules
>>>>> syntax, and to gather data about performance improvements for navigations
>>>>> that are prefetched, directly and via a private prefetch proxy (subject to
>>>>> the limitations mentioned above).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ongoing technical constraints
>>>>>
>>>>> No significant technical constraints anticipated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows,
>>>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Chrome for Android (non-WebView) only, at present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eventually other platforms will be supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not yet, but we have plans to
>>>>> <https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/speculation-rules-testing.md>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Flag name
>>>>>
>>>>> The origin trial feature name will continue to be
>>>>> SpeculationRulesPrefetch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracking bug
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1173646
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5740655424831488
>>>>>
>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions
>>>>>
>>>>> Intent to prototype:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/1q7Fp3zpjgQ
>>>>>
>>>>> Intent to experiment:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Cw-hOjT47qI/m/CY7qVZP5AQAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Intent to continue experimenting:
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/T3nKEipKv-4/m/rKJ0uFR3BAAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuR13fkTqkoXks8SdP32aafchEZTOf_oFG_71iim%2BaO84_BFg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CACuR13fkTqkoXks8SdP32aafchEZTOf_oFG_71iim%2BaO84_BFg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJUhtG-guySDUUO%3DyqLx5bU%2B5XZP5PRGjA%2BddM%2BcMSzOb8byoA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to