On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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"? > > I don't know specifically what is there right now but I would expect that we will ship others. E.g. BroadcastChannel blocks BFCache on Chrome and Mozilla but not WebKit and there is currently disagreement. Why would it be better to show "masked" for that case? F > > > > 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/CAAozHLmCGiaDmKwo6hMy%3DomcGFBpA290duw7c0RzJcZYXV4MmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
