LGTM3
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:28 AM Mike Taylor wrote:
> LGTM2
> On 5/16/23 5:42 AM, Mike West wrote:
>
> LGTM1, with the suggestion that following up on Caleb's comments about the
> spec's privacy section would be appreciated.
>
> -mike
>
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:16 AM Morgaine (de la fa
LGTM2
On 5/16/23 5:42 AM, Mike West wrote:
LGTM1, with the suggestion that following up on Caleb's comments about
the spec's privacy section would be appreciated.
-mike
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:16 AM Morgaine (de la faye)
wrote:
Hello. I don't have any present use cases as a web dev
were there any updates on this list? I just tried this on a pixel 6a and
the haptics worked to an XBox controller over bluetooth
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:31 PM Matt Reynolds
wrote:
> Compatibility depends on Android's support which isn't documented. The
> Android implementation relies on a comp
I am a *big* fan pf everything that helps to protect the integrity of a
web/javascript environment. Not necessarily to make a site or web/app
unusable, but to inform the user that an evironment has changed. It is up
to the user to decide to continue to use it or not. To that end I am
proposing
Yes, I've got a positive response from the two 3P APIs (relatively
popular). One case is already solved and in production, the second one,
responsible for a huge increase on the UKM entries from February - March is
solved and testing right now.
However, I believe we still want to coordinate the l
I've also been worried about this space as there seems to be a fundamental
tradeoff with no win-win solutions. As with other debates around tradeoffs
with privacy, I think it would be naive to think that we can know the ideal
balance ahead of time, or that it won't need to change over time. Anythin
We've filed crbug.com/1445984 to keep track of that and will update the
developer articles to point more explicitly to the failure
condition/requirements there.
-Steven
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 5:30 AM Mike West wrote:
> LGTM2, with the understanding that cleaning up the developer-facing story
>
Contact emailsorp...@chromium.org
Specification
https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-extensions/#dom-rtcrtpencodingparameters-codec
Summary
This new API extends WebRTC encoding parameters to allow developers to
choose a specific negotiated codec to be used for encoding an RTP stream.
Blink componentBl
Issued the
requests: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/187
and https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/802.
Also note: the spec has been largely finalised, so I don't expect any big
changes, including the issues mentioned by 一丝.
On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:39
[blink-dev@ to bcc]
Hi Scott,
I'll reply off list.
Cheers,
Titouan
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 2:53 PM Scott Weber wrote:
> Titouan, et.al.
>
> Is this still awaiting more feedback, and/or another intent to ship?
>
> This post:
> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/private-network-access-update/ w
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 1:09 AM Mike Taylor wrote:
> Hi Daniil,
> On 5/11/23 8:38 AM, Daniil Sakhapov wrote:
>
> Contact emails sakha...@chromium.org
>
> Explainer As part of the Interop 2023 we ship the rest of the CSS Motion
> Path. Currently only path() works. And after a spec has been reworke
LGTM1, with the suggestion that following up on Caleb's comments about the
spec's privacy section would be appreciated.
-mike
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:16 AM Morgaine (de la faye)
wrote:
> Hello. I don't have any present use cases as a web developer here, but I'm
> very excited & thrilled to s
LGTM2, with the understanding that cleaning up the developer-facing story
around this work is important. I think the unenrolled case probably falls
into step ~8 of https://wicg.github.io/trust-token-api/#issue-request, in
which case I think the web-facing behavior is clearly-enough specified. I'd
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:29 AM Asier Lostalé
wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> If possible, I'd like to clarify a couple of topics:
>
> - I see there is already an "Allows access to WebSQL APIs" flag that can
> be used to force access to WebSQL. For how long is this flag planne
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply.
If possible, I'd like to clarify a couple of topics:
- I see there is already an "Allows access to WebSQL APIs" flag that can be
used to force access to WebSQL. For how long is this flag planned to be
kept? Will it be available from M119 to M123? What about af
15 matches
Mail list logo
