Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Snap border, outline and column-rule widths before layout

LGTM2 On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 5:48 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM1 with some strings attached. > > We discussed this in the API owners meeting (present: Chris, Yoav, Mike, > Daniel, me) > > Since this matches other implementations and is somewhat deliberate > unspec'd, shipping this sounds

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM (was WebID)

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:25 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:13 AM Rick Byers wrote: > >> I've been involved somewhat with this work and so I'm recusing myself >> from my API owner role for this intent. >> >> Nevertheless I wanted to chime in and say that I agree with the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Aggregation API

LGTM to experiment from M107 to M110 inclusive (which I believe is what you're requesting, feel free to correct me). On 10/5/22 3:00 PM, Alex Turner wrote: Contact emails * ale...@chromium.org, johni...@chromium.org * Explainer *

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Aggregation API

Contact emails *ale...@chromium.org , johni...@chromium.org *Explainer *https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/private-aggregation-api * Specification *TBD*Summary *A generic mechanism for measuring aggregate,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Private Network Access requests for subresources without proper preflight response

Thanks Titouan, two of them is definitely enough, no need for three. :) Another question: have you done an analysis of how much of the UseCounter traffic is "illegitimate use"? Two of them are at 0.1% or 0.2%, which is a risky level. But hopefully the percentage of "legitimate" traffic is a lot

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Private Network Access requests for subresources without proper preflight response

There are two enterprise policies for this [1]! One for disabling it entirely, and one for disabling it per origin. We have been engaging with the enterprise team since the start of PNA, a dozen or so milestones ago. This has been announced repeatedly in enterprise release notes over the past

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Private Network Access requests for subresources without proper preflight response

I'm curious about the enterprise situation here. This seems to me like something that could be in use in enterprise applications, and we would not really know about it. ( https://www.chromium.org/developers/enterprise-changes/ is a good checklist for this) Is there an enterprise policy for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Snap border, outline and column-rule widths before layout

LGTM1 with some strings attached. We discussed this in the API owners meeting (present: Chris, Yoav, Mike, Daniel, me) Since this matches other implementations and is somewhat deliberate unspec'd, shipping this sounds good. Very nice to see highly starred interop issues being fixed :) Great

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Private Network Access requests for subresources without proper preflight response

ContextSince M104, we've started sending preflight requests before private network access, but ignoring the preflight result (or the lack of it). After analyzing the URL-keyed metrics, we found that most of them don't seem legit, most likely used for fingerprinting purposes, so we decided to start

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Network Access preflight requests for subresources

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:00 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:30 AM Jonathan Hao wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:34 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: >> >>> Thanks for pushing this! :) >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Jonathan Hao wrote: >>> TL;DR: We'd like to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Network Access preflight requests for subresources

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:30 AM Jonathan Hao wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:34 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> Thanks for pushing this! :) >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Jonathan Hao wrote: >> >>> TL;DR: We'd like to set up a deprecation trial for the following feature >>> from M109 to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Trusted Types fromLiteral

Could you also update the explainer to also cover these new methods and how developers would use them? On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:52 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Trusted Types fromLiteral

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emailsvogelh...@chromium.org > > Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/trusted-types/dist/spec/#trusted-html > > Summary > > Add a function to each "Trusted Type" to create an instance from a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Network Access preflight requests for subresources

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:34 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Thanks for pushing this! :) > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Jonathan Hao wrote: > >> TL;DR: We'd like to set up a deprecation trial for the following feature >> from M109 to M112. >> > > What's the timeline for actual enforcement of

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Private Network Access preflight requests for subresources

Thanks for pushing this! :) On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Jonathan Hao wrote: > TL;DR: We'd like to set up a deprecation trial for the following feature > from M109 to M112. > What's the timeline for actual enforcement of preflights here? Are you also asking for approvals for that, or would

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM (was WebID)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:13 AM Rick Byers wrote: > I've been involved somewhat with this work and so I'm recusing myself from > my API owner role for this intent. > > Nevertheless I wanted to chime in and say that I agree with the risk > tradeoff the team is proposing we make here. Yes there's

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Network State Partitioning (once more, with feeling)

You've got your LGTM already, but I'll double-LGTM it just to say that I appreciate the care you're putting into gathering data to support the decisions we make here. Thank you. -mike On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:01 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM for a 1% stable experiment > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Privacy Sandbox Ads APIs through M110

LGTM to extend the experiment M108-M110 inclusive Thanks for the detailed reports of addressed feedback. I'd also like to note that at least a few of the experimented APIs made good progress on draft specs. For the next extension, it would be good to show progress towards a draft spec on the ones

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: User Agent Reduction Origin Trial

LGTM3 On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 11:13 AM Mike West wrote: > I agree with Rick's analysis here. Given the purely-negative nature of > this OT, there's little risk in this burning-in unless we ship it, in which > case we want it to burn in. Dropping the usage limitation for this OT > LGTM2. > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Network State Partitioning (once more, with feeling)

LGTM for a 1% stable experiment On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:20 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > *Contact emails* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * brgoldst...@chromium.org , > miketa...@chromium.org , mme...@chromium.org > Summary We would like to run another experiment for > the Network State Partitioning

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Nesting

Exciting stuff!! On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 4:55 PM 'Steinar H. Gunderson' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails: se...@chromium.org > Explainer: None > > Specification: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-nesting > > Summary: Add the ability to nest CSS style rules inside other