Yes, ideally this change ships behind a flag.
On 3/13/23 7:43 AM, 'Jiacheng Guo' via blink-dev wrote:
For Eli Grey's question:
Yes, the behavior will change with the feature.
I believe it's reasonable to add use. The isValidHost function
behavior varies among different browsers. The change will make Chrome
act as the URL standard.
I believe it's reasonable to add a use counter for the feature. Since
the CL is created by an external developer, would you suggest creating
a feature flag for it as well?
Jiacheng Guo
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:31 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Philip Jägenstedt
<foo...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:05 AM Yoav Weiss
<yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:46 AM Philip Jägenstedt
<foo...@chromium.org> wrote:
To simplify and keep this moving, I've filed
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/759
as an umbrella issue for anything URL in Interop 2023.
My view is that we can't improve our risk
assessment of this by much with metrics, because we
can't distinguish between harmless and serious breakage.
Metrics can give us an upper bound, as well as a pile of
examples that one can then manually sample and assess
breakage.
Instead what we should do is take some comfort in the
fact that the behavior is already shipping in Safari,
try to ship it and revert at the first sign of trouble
to evaluate.
Those are not contradictory. E.g. we could add metrics
(+UKM) and a flag, and then be alert for bug reports from
Beta, as well as randomly examine sites that touch the
relevant usecounters and see if they were broken.
Would that work from your perspective?
Is the suggestion to do the same as in
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4252309
(for Intent to Ship: Port overflow check in URL setters
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/xsITedSTDnM/m/ANFrwCN0BgAJ>)
to add the use counter but not wait for data before trying to
ship this?
That's what I'm suggesting (+ a manual sampling & inspection of
URLs we'd get from UKM to actively verify there's no significant
breakage coming)
That would work for me if Jiacheng thinks it's reasonable in
this case.
--
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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJQw1NywiOk%2BFqtS4-nPDSjbp%3DBFfQ9wtENFVw7ue7EX8yim5g%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJQw1NywiOk%2BFqtS4-nPDSjbp%3DBFfQ9wtENFVw7ue7EX8yim5g%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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/725ed161-9cf8-9a5d-2113-91d94be62251%40chromium.org.
