Update: the CSSWG just resolved <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5623#issuecomment-1646125737> to specify zoom, so please consider this intent retracted.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 8:10 AM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Robin, > > This intent-to-ship is currently on hold while I investigate further the > use cases and compatibility risk. > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 8:09 AM Robin Haegeman <ro...@3daimtrainer.com> > wrote: > >> What's the latest on this topic? Is this still an ongoing discussion or >> is it decided to become deprecated from Chrome 117 onwards? Our application >> relies heavily on it so ideally we have at least a couple of months to >> adapt to this (and have some warnings in the console first a couple of >> releases before). Chrome 117 seems rather fast in my opinion to just drop >> support for a working CSS property, even if the usage is low. >> On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 23:09:35 UTC+2 Malte Nuhn wrote: >> >>> Not to our knowledge, but we’ll dig deep into this. >>> >>> However, I can confirm that simply using transform: scale is not one of >>> them: I’ve just done this in our app, and immediately run into the same >>> issues we’d seen the last time we tried: scroll performance is awful, >>> there is scroll jumpiness (especially when zoomed in deeply, probably >>> something rounding-related), and pixelation. It basically defeats the >>> purpose of working zoomed in . >>> >>> There may be ways to work around this we can implement it, or other >>> approaches altogether; right now we don’t know what those would be but as I >>> indicated we’ll dig in and report back. (Likewise, if anyone has ideas we >>> can try them pretty easily). >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24 Apr 2023, at 17:47, Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> Are there alternative ways to achieve the same effect that don't suffer >>> from blurriness or other UX issues? >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:25 PM Malte Nuhn <malte...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Similarly, online web design and authoring tools (like Framer, or our >>>> OSS project at Utopia) rely on the zoom property for working when "zoomed >>>> in". In Firefox (w/ scale as fallback) the result is a degraded (eg blurry) >>>> experience - sometimes severely so, especially when shadows, serif fonts, >>>> and SVGs are involved. >>>> >>>> In tools like these, the standard pattern is to use transform: scale >>>> when the user is zoomed out ( < 100%) in the UI, and zoom when the user is >>>> zoomed in, for maximum fidelity. >>>> >>>> FWIW I only this week discovered that zoom property removal was (back) >>>> on the agenda and imminent. I suspect authors of the other tools are >>>> similarly unaware. >>>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 3:24:39 PM UTC+1 noam.h...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing Noam, that's good to know! So is Excel Online >>>>>> unsupported or completely broken for Firefox users then? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The feature is disabled for Firefox. Since it represents a very small >>>>> fraction of our users it is less of a concern. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:04 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:50 AM Noam Helfman <noam.h...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to point out that Microsoft Excel Online utilizes zoom >>>>>>> CSS property heavily to perform the Excel grid zoom operations. >>>>>>> Removing it would completely break our zoom functionality in the >>>>>>> product and impact 100s of millions of users. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing Noam, that's good to know! So is Excel Online >>>>>> unsupported or completely broken for Firefox users then? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:05 AM Christoph Nakazawa < >>>>>> christo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In a previous response it was stated that the removal of this >>>>>>> property leads to only a small amount of code being removed, which I >>>>>>> assume >>>>>>> also means that there is little impact on reducing complexity in the >>>>>>> engine. Maybe I missed it but is there an in-depth explanation of the >>>>>>> intention and impact behind this change? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From my perspective as an outside observer / approver, the strongest >>>>>> argument I see for doing this is cross-browser interoperability. That >>>>>> could >>>>>> also be achieved by getting a specification and tests written and support >>>>>> added to Firefox. I don't personally think we should accept the status >>>>>> quo >>>>>> of Chrome supporting this unspecified API indefinitely as it doesn't meet >>>>>> our standards >>>>>> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/guidelines/web-platform-changes-guidelines/> >>>>>> for "plausible interoperability" between engines. It looks like +Rossen >>>>>> on >>>>>> the Edge team started an effort to specify the feature >>>>>> <https://github.com/atanassov/css-zoom>, but it stalled 8 years ago. >>>>>> If this feature is important to Microsoft Office, then one option could >>>>>> be >>>>>> for the Edge team to complete that work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:42:17 PM UTC+3 Chris Harrelson >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:01 PM Alex Russell < >>>>>>>> sligh...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree that this is probably too risky right now. Are you willing >>>>>>>>> to modify the plan you posted to gate #4 on a UKM analysis and/or >>>>>>>>> driving >>>>>>>>> use below a negotiated threshold, Chris? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can do the UKM analysis if that's needed. As for threshold, I >>>>>>>> think a randomized analysis percentage multiplied by the current >>>>>>>> UseCounter >>>>>>>> is good enough if the result is below some "safe enough" threshold. The >>>>>>>> review of 62 sites, plus the fact that Firefox does not support this >>>>>>>> feature, already makes me much more positive on success among the sites >>>>>>>> that are measured by use counters, and some randomized UKM analysis >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> do even more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:15:32 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Comments below, but here is a concrete shipping plan proposal: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Blog post describing what is happening, why, and how to fix >>>>>>>>>> your code. >>>>>>>>>> 2. Start a deprecation for 3 milestones (M114-116), with a >>>>>>>>>> devtools console warning. Notify enterprises and webview clients of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> deprecation. >>>>>>>>>> 3. In parallel with #2: turn it off now via finch for canary/dev, >>>>>>>>>> then later beta, to see if we get bug reports. >>>>>>>>>> 4. Assuming no bug reports that raise new concerns, ship the >>>>>>>>>> change in M117. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 9:01 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 6:53 PM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike said: *"It would also be good to go through all >>>>>>>>>>>> duplicates and "See Also" bugs linked at >>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390936 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390936> and see how >>>>>>>>>>>> we fare >>>>>>>>>>>> with a build that has zoom disabled."* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good idea. I checked all 37 of the sites referenced from that >>>>>>>>>>>> issue. I found only 3 that were even somewhat broken, and only 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>> there was something substantial (an "8-ball" image that was too >>>>>>>>>>>> big, and a >>>>>>>>>>>> facebook login that was cut off at some viewport sizes). Most >>>>>>>>>>>> sites didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> have any zoom at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also updated the "use cases" section with more use cases >>>>>>>>>>>> found by reviewing the sites. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yoav said:* "Is it possible to also expose the usecounter as >>>>>>>>>>>> UKM, and see the usage distribution? Given the high usage >>>>>>>>>>>> percentage, it >>>>>>>>>>>> can be reassuring to see that a) No large sites get broken by this >>>>>>>>>>>> b) Long >>>>>>>>>>>> tail sampling from UKM matches what y'all saw in HA"* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's possible. Based on the data I've provided (including >>>>>>>>>>>> response to Mike above), do you think it's needed? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:39 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> First, you'll have a flag so we can kill-switch it if we see >>>>>>>>>>>>> any non-trivial breakage in practice, right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Already in place. CSSZoom is a base::Feature in addition to a >>>>>>>>>>>> RuntimeEnabledFeature. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView seems particularly risky, perhaps we should separate >>>>>>>>>>>>> that out and leave it enabled on WebView at least to start? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to do that as a first step. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What about enterprise, likely to be higher risk / needing a >>>>>>>>>>>>> mitigation strategy? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll add an enterprise flag for it, and ask for this change to >>>>>>>>>>>> be highlighted in enterprise release notes. WDYT, good enough? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Works for me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From the HA analysis, were you able to get any upper bound on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the fraction of sites with significant (i.e. usability impacting) >>>>>>>>>>>>> breakage? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eg. can we spot check 100 pages that hit the counter to see if >>>>>>>>>>>>> any look >>>>>>>>>>>>> really broken? Alternately the UKM analysis Yoav suggests could >>>>>>>>>>>>> help. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>> been planning on figuring out how to do a UKM usage distribution >>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis - >>>>>>>>>>>>> this might make a good candidate. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I spot checked 62 sites from HTTPArchive and from the Mozilla >>>>>>>>>>>> bug. In my view, none were terribly broken, and almost all were >>>>>>>>>>>> unaffected >>>>>>>>>>>> or had trivial changes. According to foolip's methodology >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://sample-size.net/confidence-interval-proportion/> with >>>>>>>>>>>> N=62 and x=0, that means that we've reduced the risk from the use >>>>>>>>>>>> counter >>>>>>>>>>>> of 0.5% to 0.028%. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To get to 0.001% I'd need a lot more N, technically speaking. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, in basically all of the cases zoom was applied either >>>>>>>>>>>> to very few elements or to the body; in the latter the site still >>>>>>>>>>>> renders >>>>>>>>>>>> fine (because browser zoom uses the same technique), and for the >>>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>>> it's at best cosmetic in almost all cases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's great to hear. Given the usage is pretty high and there's >>>>>>>>>>> at least some uncertainty among developers with how to replace >>>>>>>>>>> their use of >>>>>>>>>>> zoom (Christoph's note), WDYT about doing a blog post warning about >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> removal of zoom and showing how to replace it with transforms? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, I can do that. Note that some sites already put >>>>>>>>>> -moz-transform and zoom in their style sheet, so there is evidence >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> transform works ok for some use cases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, should we consider a deprecation period with deprecation >>>>>>>>>>> warnings in the console and available to the reporting API? Or is >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> likely to be so noisy with most cases being false positives that it >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> be net harmful do you think? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A deprecation period makes sense. (Note that Firefox already has >>>>>>>>>> warnings in their devtools not to use this feature.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 4:55 PM Morten Stenshorne < >>>>>>>>>>>>> mste...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:45 PM Morten Stenshorne < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mste...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:09 PM PhistucK < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> phis...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Any alternatives? I thought there was a section in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent templates for that... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > One alternative for the use case mentioned in my earlier >>>>>>>>>>>>>> email is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > apply a CSS transform instead. This will magnify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtree visually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > but not cause a zoom-style layout change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The fact that a CSS transform doesn't affect layout, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas 'zoom' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > does, means that we'll paginate (fragment) properly with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'zoom', but not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > with transforms, since they are applied after >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation [1], causing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > content to be sliced across fragmentainer boundaries, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > page/column breaks (as far as layout is concerned) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shifted away from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the fragmentainer edges visually, and will appear in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> middle of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > page/column, for instance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-break-3/#transforms (never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > example there; it's not too relevant for this discussion, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > provide one if you want) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Agreed that this is a difference. If a developer wants the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > flow through fragmentation, they'll have to use the second >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I suggested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But in terms of web compat, I don't think this situation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > to worry about (e.g. I didn't see any fragmentation when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing 25 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > random sites linked to from chromestatus.com). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But as soon as someone prints any of those sites, there'll be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I couldn't find anything bad on those sites, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that if it's actually okay to replace zoom with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scale >>>>>>>>>>>>>> transform, we really need authors to make such elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>> monolithic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because any break point inserted inside a transformed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> element will more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely than not end up in the middle of some page, rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than at an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual page boundary). So I changed the engine locally to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> treat zoom != >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 as monolithic. But that didn't make any of sites that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried look any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Another alternative is for the developer to multiply the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > their CSS properties via calc + variables. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That alternative should always work, but more cumbersome >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > authors, I suppose? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes, a bit more cumbersome, but interoperable across all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser engines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 1:03 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Contact emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > chri...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/zoom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Removes support for the non-standard "zoom" CSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property. This CSS property causes computed lengths for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> element to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiplied by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > the specified zoom factor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Blink>CSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > TAG review status >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Not applicable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This feature is only available in Webkit and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink-based browsers, and has been present in Chrome since the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usage is a little above >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 0.5% of page loads: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/3578 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, research shows that sites in HTTPArchive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > triggering the feature mostly don't even seem to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, and those that do appear to always use it in a way that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works fine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without zoom applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > - worst case, just a very minor change to the size of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny number of UI elements, but the UX is basically the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmbXpjAcXAht2ufi7bNKy-rbVNveqaf0UzeYg_DIMNA/edit# >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Gecko: Shipped/Shipping (Firefox never supported the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > WebKit: No signal ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/170) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Web developers: Some web developers like the feature, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in particular for the use case of zooming in content in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legible way with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > design. See comments regarding that in this issue; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5623 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Other signals: The CSSWG has decided to not specify >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this feature: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5623 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Ergonomics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > See "other views" section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Activation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > N/A >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > WebView application risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView-based applications? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Maybe. WebView-based apps might use this feature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Sites should be able to see that zoom no longer applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to elements in devtools, though there is no warning planned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Will this feature be supported on all six Blink >>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Yes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Flag name >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > CSSZoom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > False >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Sample links >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > https://output.jsbin.com/yimuwax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Shipping on desktop 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > DevTrial on desktop 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Shipping on Android 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > DevTrial on Android 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Shipping on WebView 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Open questions about a feature may be a source of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future web compat or interop issues. Please list open issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. links to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known github >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > issues in the project for the feature specification) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > None >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > https://chromestatus.com/feature/6535859207143424 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw_2izF%2BTzHvALsKSxD_uLds%2BPAD7fLtvpX4Cwe7sTwU7g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABc02_%2Br8k-q-bKWGFKxgNbSy97UKGf7VUSMnrnURBJHor-x_w%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Morten Stenshorne, Software developer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Blink/Layout, Google, Oslo, Norway >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/87pm83knwv.fsf%40bud.servebeer.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morten Stenshorne, Software developer, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink/Layout, Google, Oslo, Norway >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/87leiqkz3o.fsf%40bud.servebeer.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-XO6eyfHLNFJGf2RNL%3D8-4i2%3DoNCjK6X5MfB9ZCOaUfw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-XO6eyfHLNFJGf2RNL%3D8-4i2%3DoNCjK6X5MfB9ZCOaUfw%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8khSiw2o7dZ5S6qUjQsmdJ6XUb49q_a5NH1Pn7%2BmyA%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8khSiw2o7dZ5S6qUjQsmdJ6XUb49q_a5NH1Pn7%2BmyA%3Dw%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4c24d7fe-7e68-4b8f-b16c-814d68667ac2n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4c24d7fe-7e68-4b8f-b16c-814d68667ac2n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Noam Helfman >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e87d72f5-6e0c-4ee9-9b7d-6d64d39f9ec9n%40chromium.org >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e87d72f5-6e0c-4ee9-9b7d-6d64d39f9ec9n%40chromium.org?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/0b28d3ef-f527-4293-a8e1-fe72bda3e963n%40chromium.org >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0b28d3ef-f527-4293-a8e1-fe72bda3e963n%40chromium.org?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/CAOMQ%2Bw_8qv3CwKCTbRnWMPP089j7%2BbK_Viq%3DOYiSB1QeDAc1LA%40mail.gmail.com.
