Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebAuthn PRF extension

Amazing! When can we expect to see this in stable Chrome releases? And are there any updates on this feature in other browsers? On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 4:58:32 PM UTC-7 Adam Langley wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 2:15 PM Vivek Bhupatiraju > wrote: > >> Are there any updates on this

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebAuthn PRF extension

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 2:15 PM Vivek Bhupatiraju wrote: > Are there any updates on this Intent To Ship? I would also love this > extension as it allows for an amazing UX for encryption. > Default-enabled in Chrome M116, so you should be able to experiment with it on Beta channel ahead of the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove non-standard appearance keywords

Valid appearance keywords have some side-effects even though they have no special painting. * Skip border painting * 'display' property value is changed to 'inline-block' or 'block'. So some properties such as 'width' 'height' are not ignored. Valid Invalid On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:00 PM

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Captured Surface Control

Contact emailselada...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/screen-share/captured-surface-control/blob/main/README.md Specificationhttps://screen-share.github.io/captured-surface-control Design docs

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

Jagadeesha, can you also take a look at the proposal in: https://github.com/privacycg/storage-access/issues/102 And comment there if you think that would help with your use case? On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 1:42 PM Kyra Seevers wrote: > > Would this be the alternatives for the deprecation trial?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Sec-CH-Prefers-Reduced-Transparency User Preference Media Features Client Hints Header

Just to follow up on the position request. A position request was filed as part of the original user preference client hint implementation and neither have had a response. Mozilla Position request https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/526 WebKit Position request

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Sec-CH-Prefers-Reduced-Transparency User Preference Media Features Client Hints Header

> Have we asked for signals? I haven't filed position requests yet. I will do before submitting an intent to ship however. > If Google Search is asking for this, it seems like we have some signal, no? To clarify Google Search aren't asking for this client hint specifically. But they were a

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: Warning on Insecurely-Delivered Downloads

Absolutely will do. Thanks Mike! On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:26 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > > On 7/21/23 2:22 PM, Joe DeBlasio wrote: > > Hi blink-dev! > > Starting shortly after HTTPS Upgrades > > ships, Chrome will start showing

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: Warning on Insecurely-Delivered Downloads

On 7/21/23 2:22 PM, Joe DeBlasio wrote: Hi blink-dev! Starting shortly after HTTPS Upgrades ships, Chrome will start showing warnings when a user downloads files over an insecure (i.e. non-TLS) connection. This builds on

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Per-frame quantizer in VideoEncoder

Thanks Eugene for the additional explainer text - and thanks to Alex for encouraging more work here. On 7/20/23 10:04 AM, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM3. Thank you! On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 5:46 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-07-20 05:53, Yoav Weiss wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Sec-CH-Prefers-Reduced-Transparency User Preference Media Features Client Hints Header

On 7/20/23 8:19 AM, Luke wrote: Contact emails lukewarlow...@gmail.com, l...@warlow.dev Explainer https://github.com/wicg/user-preference-media-features-headers/blob/main/README.md Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

> Would this be the alternatives for the deprecation trial? Yes, the enterprise policy `DefaultThirdPartyStoragePartitioningSetting` is another method of achieving unpartitioned storage. It would require the standard enterprise management setup:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.2

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:55 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:44 PM Daniel Vogelheim > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:24 PM Yoav Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < >>> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Contact

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

Apologies if this is being addressed already. I see that chrome has enterprise policies for the same. https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#DefaultThirdPartyStoragePartitioningSetting Would this be the alternatives for the deprecation trial? does the same expiry (*Chrome 127 on September

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: content-visibility: auto implies contain-intrinsic-size: auto

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:08 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Since this is a behavior change, I'd love to better understand the > implications of this change on existing content, and the upper bounds of > those implications. > Do we have counters for existing usage that will render differently as a >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API

/* with my API OWNER hat on */ Examining this proposed change, it seems to me that the most risky part in the signed attestation information is the part about

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.2

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:44 PM Daniel Vogelheim wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:24 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < >> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Contact emailsvogelh...@chromium.org >>> >>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.2

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:24 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Contact emailsvogelh...@chromium.org >> >> Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1442 >> >> Summary >> >> Opaque Response

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.2

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:53 PM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emailsvogelh...@chromium.org > > Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1442 > > Summary > > Opaque Response Blocking (ORB) is a replacement for Cross-Origin Read > Blocking

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

Hi there, Thank you for your email - as of today (Monday 7/24/23), the feature is not rolled-out to stable. However, I can confirm that the rollout schedule for this feature begins in M115 at Stable 1% (once M115 is served to 100% of users). M115 is currently served to 12.5% of users - you can

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Tabbed web apps

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:04 Šime Vidas wrote: > Is it available in CSS media queries? > > @media (display-mode: tabbed) { ... } > I have opened https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/952 where the same request is made for all overrides. > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:50:44 AM UTC+2

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Clear Client Hints via Clear-Site-Data header

Wanted to bump review for this, thanks! ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 2:00 PM Rick Byers wrote: > Seems like a pretty minor and straightforward addition to an already > shipped feature to me. LGTM1 > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:39 PM Ari Chivukula > wrote: >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: prefers-reduced-transparency feature

> Also, how would users signal their preference? There are currently three platforms that implement an explicit setting for this preference. - In Windows 10/11: Settings > Accessibility > Visual effects > Transparency effects. - In macOS: System Preferences > Accessibility > Display >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: prefers-reduced-transparency feature

I'd love to hear +Mike Taylor 's thought about this from an extra fingerprinting bit perspective. Also, how would users signal their preference? On Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 23:21 Luke wrote: > Contact emailslukewarlow...@gmail.com, l...@warlow.dev > > ExplainerNone > > Specification >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove non-standard appearance keywords

tkent@ - can you expand on the compat risk? It's not immediately obvious to me what these apps were doing that resulted in a rendering difference. On Mon, Jul 24, 2023, 03:45 TAMURA, Kent wrote: > Removing appearance keywords which have no painting code might have > compatibility issues. We