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

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

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] 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

[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] 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 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 11:25 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!

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

[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] 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 >

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] 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

[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] 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

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 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