Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Add support for Promise to Blobs in clipboard item

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:56 AM Anupam Snigdha wrote: > Let me try to clarify few things. Currently there is *no *user activation > requirements in async clipboard read/write in Chromium browsers. e.g. > https://clumsy-garnet-meeting.glitch.me/. Just load this page and refresh > it without clicki

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

Hi Blink Owners, We have now implemented DGAPI v2.0 which is in M96 as a separate OT. The DGAPI v1 code has been removed in M96 so the v1 trial will not be exposed to versions greater than M95. However, the OT system is based around dates instead of milestones, and the v1 OT is currently set to e

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: New Canvas 2D API

Hey Domenic! :) On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:00 PM Domenic Denicola wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 3:48 PM 'Aaron Krajeski' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> yoavweiss@: >> >> Great video, thanks for that!! >> >> Thanks! >> >> Were the concerns WebKit raised on the issu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

LGTM1 On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andreu Botella wrote: > I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are some > because of the failures in > https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned, > but there

Re: [blink-dev] RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Feature policy for Keyboard API

Thanks Daniel! I have opened a bug to investigate this issue: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1264662 From: Daniel Bratell Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:22 PM To: blink-dev Cc: Dave Tapuska ; sligh...@chromium.org ; blin...@chromium.o

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Add support for Promise to Blobs in clipboard item

Hi Mike, Let me try to clarify few things. Currently there is no user activation requirements in async clipboard read/write in Chromium browsers. e.g. https://clumsy-garnet-meeting.glitch.me/. Just load this page and refresh it without clicking anywhere on the page, you will see the content wil

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: forced-color-adjust: preserve-parent-color

Contact emails sart...@microsoft.com, alison.ma...@microsoft.com Explainer https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/Accessibility/PreserveParentColor/explainer.md Specification https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-adj

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: New Canvas 2D API

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 3:48 PM 'Aaron Krajeski' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > yoavweiss@: > > Great video, thanks for that!! > > Thanks! > > Were the concerns WebKit raised on the issue > addressed? Can you expand on > that front?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

I don't think the differences are listed anywhere. I know there are some because of the failures in https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned, but there might be others that aren't tested. Although it seems like some of

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

About the differences in the structured clone algorithm across implementations: I don't think those are listed anywhere. I know there are some because of the failures in https://wpt.fyi/results/html/infrastructure/safe-passing-of-structured-data?label=experimental&label=master&aligned, but the

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTP->HTTPS redirect for HTTPS DNS records

We just started rolling the behavior to 50% on Chrome Beta. On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 1:09 PM Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 19 Oct 2021, at 17:22, Eric Orth wrote: > > > Yes. Chrome 96 should start going to Beta this week, and we will most > > likely be turning the experiment up to 50% on Beta

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Capture Handle

If 2021-11-01 is too short-notice by now, we could also do 2021-08 to 2021-11-28. On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:08:38 PM UTC+2 Elad Alon wrote: > Thank you, Yoav, for this suggestion about resetting the clock. We would > like to now do just that, pausing the experiment 2021-11-01 to 2021-

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: New Canvas 2D API

yoavweiss@: Great video, thanks for that!! Thanks! Were the concerns WebKit raised on the issue addressed? Can you expand on that front? Yes, othermaciej@'s comments lead to us changing the name of that function to `reset` instead of `clear`.

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Conversion Measurement API (Attribution Reporting API)

hey John, In line with the policy we adopted earlier regarding trials in this bucket of features [1], I appreciate the reporting around total page loads. We're inclined to extend this OT, but wanted to quickly check in to see if y'all have any interim results from the trial thus far. Are you su

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CORS non-wildcard request-header

I think it's reasonable for us to dig into the data a little bit to determine whether the 0.04% number quoted above will result in user-facing breakage. Yutaka, is that something you'd be willing to dig into? The direction seems philosophically correct to me, so I'd like to see it ship, but I'd al

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: New Canvas 2D API

It would be worth discussing this with the folks responsible for paint worklets; there has been a lot of work to ensure that the worklets don't include APIs that would allow for readback. Adding Xida and Ian for that. Best regards, Alex On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 7:28:50 AM UTC-7 Aaron Kr

Re: [blink-dev] RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Feature policy for Keyboard API

LGTM3, (but follow up with Dave about the implementation details, and make sure to listen to any late comments from other reviews) On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 23:52:31 UTC+2 Dave Tapuska wrote: > For a cross origin renderer the browser process would be involved because > the allow attribut

Re: [blink-dev] RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Feature policy for Keyboard API

Thanks for filing a TAG issue and an issue in permission policy. Would also like to make sure that there is integration with the Permissions API: https://w3c.github.io/permissions/ On the question of browser signals, it's fine to note that Apple wasn't interested, but that probably isn't a reas

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: [WebAuthn] Authenticator Attachment in Public Key Credential

LGTM3 even On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:28:32 PM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 with similar conditions. > > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:23:45 PM UTC+2 Alex Russell wrote: > >> Thanks for explaining, Adam. >> >> I'm LGTM1 contingent on: >> >>- An explainer being produced with at

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Add support for Promise to Blobs in clipboard item

We discussed this in the API owners' meeting, and there's some confusion both about what's specified, and what Chromium's implementation does. I read https://github.com/w3c/clipboard-apis/issues/161 as suggesting that the `ClipboardItem` has a promise which, when resolved, provides access to the cu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: HDR CSS Media Queries

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:38 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:19:44 PM UTC+2 Fernando Serboncini wrote: > >> [coming from the other thread... :) ] >> >> +1 to what David said. It doesn't seem that returning dynamic-range: high >> right now would be useful. >> >> The sp

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+2 jo...@igalia.com wrote: > This would be a great addition. Node.js also has been shipping this since > v17.0.0 . > On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 5:12:32 AM UTC+8 fs...@chromium.org > wrote: > >> T

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: HDR CSS Media Queries

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:19:44 PM UTC+2 Fernando Serboncini wrote: > [coming from the other thread... :) ] > > +1 to what David said. It doesn't seem that returning dynamic-range: high > right now would be useful. > > The spec could use some clarification: > - clarify if those criteria

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Subresource loading with Web Bundles

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:49 AM Daisuke Enomoto wrote: > > Contact emails > > hay...@chromium.org, denom...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > > https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/subresource-loading.md > > Specification > Design docs > > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chr

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: [WebAuthn] Authenticator Attachment in Public Key Credential

LGTM2 with similar conditions. On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:23:45 PM UTC+2 Alex Russell wrote: > Thanks for explaining, Adam. > > I'm LGTM1 contingent on: > >- An explainer being produced with at least the content of Adam's last >post being included. >- An FYI being sent to the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: [WebAuthn] Authenticator Attachment in Public Key Credential

LGTM2 with similar caveats to Alex's comments above. I realize that this is a small change, but I hope that also means that the work required to produce a clear explanation of the change is minimal. Alternatively, it might be helpful to produce an explainer walking through the overarching story aro

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Capability Delegation

Thanks for your feedback, Jun. That's an important point that calls for clarification: This is spec is probably written with the assumption that Permission > Delegation > > is implemented (or should

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: WebSQL in third-party contexts

I agree with you, and hope we can soon make such an announcement (and add the warning for developers). On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 07:56 Fernando Serboncini wrote: > Given that we are disabling this for 3rd parties, would it make sense to > already start warning 1st-party usage (saying that this doe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: WebSQL in third-party contexts

Given that we are disabling this for 3rd parties, would it make sense to already start warning 1st-party usage (saying that this doesn't work at all for 3rd parties and that it will be removed in the future)? I don't know what's the guideline regarding having a deprecation warning without a clear

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Color Adjust: 'only' keyword for color-scheme

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:11 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > Hi, > > Some comments inline. > > On 27/10/2021 16:09, Rune Lillesveen wrote: > > Summary > > > > The 'only' keyword has been re-added to the specification for > > color-scheme as a way of per-element opt-out of color-scheme

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: self.structuredClone

This would be a great addition. Node.js also has been shipping this since v17.0.0 . On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 5:12:32 AM UTC+8 fs...@chromium.org wrote: > This is amazing! :) > > I agree it shouldn't block this, but do we have anywhere written w

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Color Adjust: 'only' keyword for color-scheme

Hi, Some comments inline. On 27/10/2021 16:09, Rune Lillesveen wrote: > Summary > > The 'only' keyword has been re-added to the specification for > color-scheme as a way of per-element opt-out of color-scheme override > like forced darkening. I guess this is the CSSWG discussion about r

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship : onsecuritypolicyviolation event handler IDL attribute

This will ship in M97. Cheers, Rego On 27/10/2021 19:24, 'Joe Medley' via blink-dev wrote: > Hi, > > In which version of Chrome do you hope to ship? > Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jmed...@google.com >  | 816-678-7195 > /If an API's not documented it