LGTM3 - thanks!
On 3/20/25 12:14 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote:
LGTM2
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:13 AM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org>
wrote:
Thank you for checking.
LGTM1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:09 AM 'Munira Tursunova' via blink-dev
<blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote:
Checked the websites with potential breakages, don't observe
any breakages.
The only website with visual differences is
https://css3test.com/#css-values-5, but it "checks which CSS3
features the browser recognizes, not whether they are
implemented correctly." (pasted from the website) and links to
CSS Values 5 attr() spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-5/#attr-notation, so should
be updated accordingly.
Updated the doc
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xrREMWVQiQbDr6OvALHvBko7hokpM44nTPxzEGE7PSs/edit?usp=sharing>
with the findings.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:52 PM Tab Atkins Jr.
<jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM Alex Russell
<slightly...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Why would we change this? We backed the original intent
with the usual conditions: once the concrete is poured,
it's done. I'm not inclined to approve.
That is not, as a general rule, how API owner approval is
interpreted,
or (as far as I know) intended. It also drastically
conflicts with
usual practice, which has substantial weight of precedent
behind it -
while we of course balance the cost of any changes with
the benefits,
we are generally *open* to changes requested by other
implementors,
particularly when we're the first to advance an API.
In this particular case, the cost is virtually nil - it's
a brand new
API with minimal usage, and it's a change to a *default*
keyword that
would rarely be written explicitly anyway. (We only have
it at all,
rather than just relying on a keyword being absent, due to
my own API
design preferences, and the fact that it aids us with a small
back-compat issue.) The benefit of "make other
implementors happier
with the API" definitely outweighs the costs here, by any
reasonable
metric.
But even in more controversial/costly cases, I strongly
contest the
principle you're trying to establish here. We *do* make
changes, even
ones with compat pain, as part of our unofficial contract
with other
implementors, to make it more palatable to everyone when
we push ahead
faster than other implementors are comfortable with or
capable of
matching. It's always a judgement call, but it leans
*much* further
toward acceptance than "once Blink API owners approve, the
concrete is
poured" does.
~TJ
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAO7W_CFxpEZk%2BsdK3b8pfOX%3DPo0bdXxNnHWYvB8j2TeiqEVDw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAO7W_CFxpEZk%2BsdK3b8pfOX%3DPo0bdXxNnHWYvB8j2TeiqEVDw%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 visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2Mk4BGq%2BTkCt_af2YK9HbWQ_2O1gZZvjmQ6%3D2XVObG0%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2Mk4BGq%2BTkCt_af2YK9HbWQ_2O1gZZvjmQ6%3D2XVObG0%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+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e3eb2e5e-b387-42e6-bd80-49cfa8319b52%40chromium.org.
