Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

It looks like it needs review, and I'm one of the assigned reviewers... Sorry that I missed this. I'll take a look. On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:27 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > Side note: is there anything blocking > https://github.com/WICG/trust-token-api/pull/257 from landing? > On 6/8/23 9:28 AM, Stev

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: FedCM Sign-in Status API

LGTM to experiment from M116 to M119 inclusive. On 6/8/23 5:38 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: Contact emails cbiesin...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/blob/main/proposals/idp-sign-in-status-api.md

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Expanded Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Code and WPTs shipped here: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4555927 Spec shipped here: https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-permissions-policy/pull/516 ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:05 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Hi Ari, > Given the discussi

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH)

We've been running ECH at 50% Beta for TCP since I last posted (Nov 7, 2022). We recently landed support for ECH+QUIC, which is also running on Beta. We never made it to 1% Stable, so I'd like to continue to experiment / actually start a stable experiment, probably from 115-119. The main server

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH)

That's great to hear! Looking forward to ECH traffic ramping up (from the looks of it 115 is slated to go out in July?) Thanks, -- Achiel van der Mandele Product Manager On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:13 AM 'David Adrian' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > We've been running ECH at 50

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Expanded Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Thanks Ari, looks great! Can you also please post an update to the WebKit positions threads ? I see you've landed fixes in CSP for 2 of the 3 issues Anne filed (great!), but it would be good to know if WebKit folks st

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Expanded Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Done https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/51#issuecomment-1584956430 On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, 1:57 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Thanks Ari, looks great! > > Can you also please post an update to the WebKit positions threads >

[blink-dev] blink_web_tests on linux will now use threaded compositing by default

tl;dr - web_tests will switch to running with threaded compositing by default. A long-standing deficiency in the blink web_test framework is that content_shell runs with the blink compositor in single-threaded mode, which is not a conf

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

Resurrecting this thread, because yotha@ are launching the first step in a project that completely ignores the previous consensus (i.e., that we should *not* enable threaded compositing for all web_tests). I will paraphrase the high-level arguments made previously by enne@ and ojan@, neither of

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stefan Zager wrote: > Resurrecting this thread, because yotha@ are launching the first step in > a project that completely > ignores the previous consensus (i.e., that we should *not* enable threaded > compositing for all > web_tests). > This is exciting to hear!

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM Improvements: LoginHint, UserInfo, and Context

Contact emails n...@chromium.org Explainers https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/issues/382 https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/issues/426 https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/issues/456 Specification https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/pull/470 Design docs (Google internal

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:38 AM Ken Rockot wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stefan Zager wrote: > >> Resurrecting this thread, because yotha@ are launching the first step in >> a project that completely >> ignores the previous consensus (i.e., that we should *not* enable >> threaded co

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: contain-intrinsic-size: auto none support

Contact emailsvmp...@chromium.org SpecificationNone Summary This feature extends the existing contain-intrinsic-size syntax: none | | auto && to also include auto && none: none | | auto && | auto && none The reason for this change is the CSSWG resolution ( https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: @scope

This is not something that Google can change unilaterally since the feature was specified by the CSS Working Group. A better venue for this feedback may be the CSS Working Group Github (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts) . Use [css-cascade-6] in the title of the issue so it'll get to the rig

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

Woah 2015 super necro thread! There were a couple meta angles here: - Explicitly testing non-web exposed behavior is probably better done with a SimTest or other unit test. In the past folks kept adding more methods to Internals, or special behavior to the compositor, to make it easier to write w

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:07 PM Elliott Sprehn wrote: > Woah 2015 super necro thread! > > There were a couple meta angles here: > > - Explicitly testing non-web exposed behavior is probably better done with > a SimTest or other unit test. In the past folks kept adding more methods to > Internals,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Layout tests should not use threaded compositing, part XIII

I think the strongest argument for threaded web tests is that web tests are the foundation for WPT. We now prefer web tests to be WPT when possible, and wpt.fyi runs