[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Media Source Extensions for WebCodecs

Contact emailswolen...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/wolenetz/mse-for-webcodecs/blob/main/explainer.md Specification Design docs https://github.com/wolenetz/mse-for-webcodecs/blob/main/explainer.md Summary Extends the Media Source Extensions API (MSE) to enable buffering containerl

[blink-dev] Re: Update on User-Agent Reduction plans

I suppose there's always a possibility, but I'm not aware of anything that would cause it to reject today. As a fallback, you could parse the major version from `navigator.userAgentData.brands`, or just grab that info from `navigator.userAgent` (the major version will always be there, even afte

[blink-dev] Re: Update on User-Agent Reduction plans

Hi Mike Sorry, missed this new method. Is there a possibility that the Promise will be rejected when invoked from the extension? Thanks. On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 1:51:05 AM UTC+5 mike...@chromium.org wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > Can you help me understand why the JS API (e.g., > `navigat

[blink-dev] Re: Update on User-Agent Reduction plans

*Hi, what about web extensions?* *How the extension developers are supposed to implement version-specific behavior after this change? Not every feature can be easily detected by testing objects for properties. Also sometimes we need the browser's full version to work around bugs in particular b

[blink-dev] Re: Update on User-Agent Reduction plans

Hi Vladimir, Can you help me understand why the JS API (e.g., `navigator.userAgentData.getHighEntropyValues(["uaFullVersion"])`) won't work in a web extension? thanks, Mike On 9/9/21 4:48 PM, Vladimir Pastukhov wrote: *Hi, what about web extensions?* * * *How the extension developers are su

[blink-dev] Ready for Trial: PWA manifest unique id - desktop

Contact emailsphil...@chromium.org, pwa-...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/phill/pwa-unique-id/blob/main/explainer.md Specificationhttps://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/988 Design docs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f9xQR1msTxiYvzFguKMkqSfrXMo_cT2yvhCEM3SYIt0/edit?usp=sharing <

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Continue Experimenting: Digital Goods API

LGTM3. -mike On Thu 9. Sep 2021 at 22:22 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 to the plan and comments outlined by Chris. > > /Daniel > On 2021-09-09 22:18, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > Hi Glen, > > Thanks for your patience while we (collectively - your team, API owners, > and others) worked through a r

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Yes, we absolutely can fixup the docs that we own and reach out to the owners of the docs that we don't own ourselves. On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 4:21 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Would you also be able to fix up the documentation out there that's > pointing at basic-card? > A few places I see at a glance

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Would you also be able to fix up the documentation out there that's pointing at basic-card? A few places I see at a glance are MDN , WebFundementals

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Continue Experimenting: Digital Goods API

Hi Glen, Thanks for your patience while we (collectively - your team, API owners, and others) worked through a response to your request. The API owners met today and discussed this request to extend the Origin Trial. Here is some new data I got: * The team showed evidence of recent further engag

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Sure, let's do 4 milestones. We can put the deprecation message in the developer console in M96 and perform the removal in M100. On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:26 PM Mike West wrote: > Ok. Does ~4-5 milestones (M100-101 sound good to you?) > > -mike > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:20 PM Rouslan Solomak

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Ok. Does ~4-5 milestones (M100-101 sound good to you?) -mike On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:20 PM Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > > a deprecation period before removal isn't an unreasonable path forward. > WDYT > > That sounds reasonable to us. We are planning a blog post, too, by the way. > > (Respondi

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: Control character handling in cookies

I don't think `countDeprecation` is going to work here, insofar as that's a Blink-layer concept, and the network stack isn't going to have an understanding of page views or use counters or etc. If we've wired things up such that deprecation reports can be triggered from the network stack, lovely, b

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

> a deprecation period before removal isn't an unreasonable path forward. WDYT That sounds reasonable to us. We are planning a blog post, too, by the way. (Responding on behalf of Stephen and Max because they happen to be both OOO today.) On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:57 PM Mike West wrote: > Given

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2021-09-09 20:51, Mike West wrote: LGTM2. -mike On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:54 PM Yoav Weiss > wrote: That's great! LGTM1 On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:35 PM Arthur Sonzogni mailto:arthursonzo...@chromium.org>> wrote: >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Reporting API: Isolate reports per-document and support the Reporting-Endpoints header

LGTM3. That said, we really need to stop renaming things that we've shipped. I think there's reasonable justification for doing so in this case, and given Mozilla's support for the `Reporting-Endpoints` model (and lack of support for the `Report-To` model), it seems reasonable to me to follow thro

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Given the UKM-driven manual analysis, I'm willing to believe that sites using this mechanism won't crumble if it's removed. That said, the deprecation in the spec that you pointed to above landed ~2 weeks ago. Perhaps it's reasonable to extend developers' ability to conduct transactions through thi

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

LGTM2. -mike On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:54 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > That's great! > > LGTM1 > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:35 PM Arthur Sonzogni < > arthursonzo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > I'm cautious about using that as evidence for a positive position. Can >> you ask for signals? https://bit.l

Re: [blink-dev] Re: [chromium-dev] Interesting pattern regarding JS memory usage for DOM manipulations

Thanks Stefan for the explanation. Is there any way I can test or visualize that? I guess this should be reelected in the meminfra profile allocations but I am not sure at the moment about which meminfra category would reflect the memory allocated for rasterizations and its trees. Thanks @Christia

[blink-dev] ntent to Remove: Rename User-Agent Client Hint ACCEPT-CH tokens Question

I am not sure I am clearly understanding the Alternative for the "ua-*" and the “sec-ch-ua-*” tokens option. Which would you recommend happen if there are variants of the licence that you want to apply to your variant but others that you want restricted? As an example, if I had an idea for a

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

That's great! LGTM1 On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:35 PM Arthur Sonzogni wrote: > > I'm cautious about using that as evidence for a positive position. Can > you ask for signals? https://bit.ly/blink-signals > > This intent is about completing the implementation of a previously shipped > mechanism to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

When I looked around to see what other methods were available, it seemed to me like all documentation and explainers included basic-card as the standard method, and few of them used anything else. I wonder if that means that it's too early to deprecate before documentation and specs is updated

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

> I'm cautious about using that as evidence for a positive position. Can you ask for signals? https://bit.ly/blink-signals This intent is about completing the implementation of a previously shipped mechanism to a context where it should have existed in the first place. There was agreement with M

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

It's positive. For example, emscripten uses SharedArrayBuffer to use pthread by enabling cross-origin isolation by sending COEP and COOP. I consider this is a signal that developers accept this restriction. https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/pthreads.html 2021年9月9日(木) 20:30 Yoav Weiss : > > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Trial for SharedArrayBuffers in non-isolated pages on Desktop platforms

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2021-09-07 19:38, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 5:51 AM Yoav Weiss > wrote: Thanks for working with the community on these mechanisms that enable easier COI adoption! M92-M103 would mean the trial is running f

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Reporting API: Isolate reports per-document and support the Reporting-Endpoints header

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2021-09-07 16:06, Ian Clelland wrote: On Mon., Sep. 6, 2021, 3:19 a.m. Yoav Weiss, > wrote: On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:31 PM Scott Helme mailto:scott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hey Yoav, Thanks for linking me in, I'm happy t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

> Can you clarify what breakage may look like for sites that may rely on it? If a site was *entirely* relying on basic-card to collect credit card details from their user, it would be impossible for the user to complete their checkout. So arguably 'site completely broken' from that perspective (as

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: The "basic-card" method of PaymentRequest API

Can you clarify what breakage may look like for sites that may rely on it? On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:34:46 PM UTC+2 Stephen McGruer wrote: > > Any usecounter stats you can share? > > Unfortunately no usecounters for two reasons: > > 1) Payment APIs in general have very low usage when com

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

LGTM to experiment M95-M98 On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:40:41 AM UTC+2 Emanuel Krivoy wrote: > Contact emails > > fived...@chromium.org, r...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessHandle.md > > Specification > > Work in progress. See exp

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: COEP for shared worker

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:00:48 PM UTC+2 Yifan Luo wrote: > Contact emails > l...@chromium.org, arthursonzo...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mpIKhBhsx4deZXu3C2bnie5LSbzumjD1m6uhJx-hPQA/edit?usp=sharing > > Specificationhttps://wicg.github.io/cross-orig

Re: [blink-dev] Need help in resolving blink-v8 bindings generation error occurred during compilation

This looks a different issue. The Blink-V8 binding generator produced an error. The error message should have been printed on stderr, although it's not easy to read because we're running the generator in parallel. The script //third_party/blink/renderer/bindings/scripts/generate_bindings.py supp

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: Control character handling in cookies

Sounds good! Can you please ping this thread once results start coming in? Thanks! :) On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:59:36 AM UTC+2 Andrew Williams wrote: > Sounds good - we will add the CountDeprecation metrics. Thanks for the > suggestion, Yoav, and thank you Ian for the additional info