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 implementation: - I found performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js> which seems like it needs to be updated from "error-document" to "navigation-failure". That's worth looking into in case it means the implementation is also not yet updated. - I also found that the Chromium test directory is full of -expected.txt files <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/abort-block-bfcache.window-expected.txt?q=NotRestoredReasonDetails&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc&start=21>, which seem to match up with the failures on wpt.fyi <https://wpt.fyi/results/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&q=performance-timeline%2Fnot-restored-reasons>. Will those be addressed before shipping? - I found a nonstandard toJSON() in NotRestoredReasonDetails <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/not_restored_reasons.idl;l=12;drc=6211b1c8268b239694bd84d7a99e508a15dc6dea> in Chromium. Was the intent to specify that? - Can you confirm that Chromium does not plan to ship any nonstandard not restored reason strings, beyond the specified "fetch", "navigation-failure", "parser-aborted", "websocket", "lock", and "masked"? On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 5:38 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> wrote: > This is now ready to ship, now that we have all the approvals on the > ChromeStatus > <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600?gate=6535221965488128>and > the spec draft <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360> is close to > agreement. > > Can you please take a look at this again? > Thanks! > > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:00:51 AM UTC+9 Chris Harrelson wrote: > >> Please also make sure to complete all of the other shipping gate reviews >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bqvB1oap0Yc/m/YlO8DEHgAQAJ> >> . >> >> Thanks! >> Chris >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < >> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Sounds good, I will create a list on the explainer >>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md> >>> for the "may block" reasons then. >>> >>> Re: exposing NotRestoredReasons interface instead of object in idl: >>> I'm working on the implementation in this CL >>> <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? >>> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:06:49 AM UTC+9 dom...@chromium.org >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola <dom...@chromium.org> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> think the end goal should be: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a >>>>>> specification somewhere. (It doesn't have to be the HTML spec, e.g. >>>>>> the >>>>>> speech synthesis reason could live in the speech synthesis spec.) >>>>>> >>>>>> There's no intrinsic reason for speech synthesis to block BFCache. It >>>>> just happens that Chrome blocked it. There's no spec reason for unload to >>>>> block BFCache, in fact the spec says that it doesn't. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's good for us to have agreed names, e.g. >>>>> "unload-event-handler". Should we put into various specs "if an >>>>> implementer >>>>> chooses to block BFCache because X has been used, they should use the >>>>> reason `Y`"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - If browsers prevent bfcache restoration for a reason not found >>>>>> in a spec, it is always translated to a standardized reason such as >>>>>> "unknown". >>>>>> >>>>>> This avoids the usual interop problems with vendor-specific >>>>>> extensions to the web platform, such as: no clear specification for what >>>>>> strings to use; no clear point at which the reason is added to the >>>>>> document's reasons list; etc. Although you claim these reasons are >>>>>> idiosyncratic to Chrome, that won't necessarily be the case; e.g. Firefox >>>>>> has unload handler as a reason, and I suspect most user agents have >>>>>> memory >>>>>> limitations or similar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chrome has over 100 reasons. I'd say at least 50 of them are >>>>> actionable such that you wouldn't want to lump them into an opaque >>>>> "unknown" category. >>>>> >>>>> I do not relish the idea of updating 50 places in spec to insert a >>>>> name to be used if you decide to block. >>>>> >>>>> How about maintaining a central list of reasons with low friction to >>>>> add new reasons even if they are browser-specific? The cases where you >>>>> *must* block should still be inline in spec (and also on the list), >>>>> >>>> >>>> That sounds great to me. We should probably make this separation clear >>>> in the spec, e.g. the "must" list will have cross-references you can >>>> follow, whereas the "may" list ends up only being cross-referenced from >>>> some generic location like >>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#note-bfcache:~:text=User%20agents%20may,keeping%20it%20cached. >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> F >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We could have a discussion about allowing vendor-specific information >>>>>> in the API *in addition* to the standardized reasons. For example, >>>>>> we could have one of the standardized reasons be "user-agent-specific", >>>>>> and >>>>>> then add an additional field userAgentSpecificInfo. But I would like to >>>>>> see >>>>>> significantly more discussion with other vendors before going that route. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +bfcache-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was talking to Fergal today and discussed this, and I am not sure >>>>>>> about adding browser-specific reasons to the spec. >>>>>>> For example, some reasons like "speech synthesis API is used" / >>>>>>> "unload handler" are completely specific to Chrome, and it doesn't >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> make sense to add them to the spec, even with the namespace >>>>>>> (x-speechsysthesis / x-unloadhandler). >>>>>>> Maybe we can document the reasons somewhere in a shared list but not >>>>>>> in the spec? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the API would be more useful if it can give as much >>>>>>> information as possible, not limited to the specced reasons. >>>>>>> Please let me know what you think! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:39:17 PM UTC+9 Yuzu Saijo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *> there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons interface >>>>>>>> defined in Chromium?* >>>>>>>> Let me address this implementation and delay the shipping until the >>>>>>>> chromium implementation matches the proposed spec. Thanks for pointing >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> out! >>>>>>>> Same for WPT. I will add tests for all the standardized reasons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *> Can you confirm that you're only shipping the specified four?* >>>>>>>> We do have ~50 not restored reasons, and in theory we will be able >>>>>>>> to remove most of them except for the standardized four reasons. >>>>>>>> However, in reality it will take time for us to support all the >>>>>>>> reasons and we need to keep blocking on them for a while. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, our plan was to expose the non-standardized >>>>>>>> reasons too, but in a way that's distinguishable from standardized >>>>>>>> reasons as >>>>>>>> you suggested here >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2>. >>>>>>>> I realized that we need to add browser specific reasons to the spec >>>>>>>> as well. Let me add that and send a review request again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:07:05 PM UTC+9 dom...@chromium.org >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, checking the tests, 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.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 < >>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/performance_navigation_timing.idl;l=33?q=NotRestoredReasons%20file:%5C.idl&ss=chromium>. >>>>>>>>>> That seems like a problematic mismatch... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second, I can't find exactly where the list of script-exposed not >>>>>>>>>> restored reasons are. But, I'll note that Chromium seems to have >>>>>>>>>> ~50 such reasons >>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main:content/browser/renderer_host/back_forward_cache_metrics.h;drc=6754d1409bf5099314eea7e87e896622ade9bc0f;l=49>, >>>>>>>>>> whereas you've only specified 4 (fetch, navigation-failure, >>>>>>>>>> parser-aborted, >>>>>>>>>> websocket). Can you confirm that you're only shipping the specified >>>>>>>>>> four? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:11 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:28 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yu...@google.com, yu...@chromium.org, fer...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Design docs >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReason API will report the list of reasons why a >>>>>>>>>>>> page is not served from BFcache in a frame tree structure, via >>>>>>>>>>>> PerformanceNavigationTiming API. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> UI>Browser>Navigation>BFCache >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:UI%3EBrowser%3ENavigation%3EBFCache> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/739 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Issues addressed >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko: Defer ( >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/766) >>>>>>>>>>>> Once issues (standardized reasons & unsalvageable documents), they >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> switch to positive. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the "standardized reasons" part is addressed in >>>>>>>>>>> your PR. Is the same true for the second point? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit: No signal ( >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/154) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: Positive ( >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/navigation-timing/issues/171#issuecomment-1062672989 >>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Other signals: Positive from Origin Trial users: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How likely are you to keep using this feature? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 92% answered likely, 8% (1 vote) is unsure >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We do not report detailed information about cross-origin >>>>>>>>>>>> iframes. See Security and Privacy section >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md#security-and-privacy> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the explainer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In DevTools console, try: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> performance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].notRestoredReasons; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReasons API is available on all platforms including >>>>>>>>>>>> WebView, but back/forward cache is not enabled on WebView. So on >>>>>>>>>>>> WebView, >>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReasons API should always say that the page is blocked >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> being restored from bfcache with the reason being something like >>>>>>>>>>>> “not >>>>>>>>>>>> supported”. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Currently it reports null due to a bug >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1459533> >>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial instructions >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/rubberyuzu/bfcache-not-retored-reason/blob/main/HowToTest.md >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flag nameblink RunTimeEnabledFeature: >>>>>>>>>>>> BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/runtime_enabled_features.json5;l=423?q=BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons%20-f:out&ss=chromium> >>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1326344 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Launch bug >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4200848 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop last >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop first >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on Android >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android last >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android first >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on Android >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView last >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView first >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web >>>>>>>>>>>> compat or interop issues. Please list open issues. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to prototype: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoGAzjUjzv3WmxcRpUSBgnA-AHQ05kh9gXc%2BQB8pRM6%2BfA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHe391sAB2PdbEVw9uiSPFxTB_EYsRizcPpZ7-pg16O0A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAA5e698QcKZSthm%3Dz_4pi8cOzi4kfbx-AXveC%2BAKimUh-tMycA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.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/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%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/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "bfcache-dev" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to bfcache-dev...@chromium.org. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%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/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%40chromium.org >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%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/CAM0wra9dkEGuFktFyuwLp4StedBtYxQbc5yVjbkDqyUii2DYeA%40mail.gmail.com.
