[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Dangling markup in target name

Contact emails jkoka...@google.com Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9309/files Summary This change replaces the navigable target name (which is usually set by target attribute) to `_blank`, if it contains a dangling markup (i.e. `\n` and `<`). Which fixes a bypass in the dangl

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Sec-CH-UA-Form-Factor client hint

Contact emailsdjmit...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/djmitche/web-explainers/blob/main/sec-ch-ua-form-factor.md Specificationhttps://wicg.github.io/ua-client-hints/#sec-ch-ua-form-factor Summary This hint indicates the "form-factor" of the user-agent / device, so that the site can t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Japanese Phrase Line Breaking

Good point, thanks for asking. Technically speaking, we can't write any tests because the language-specific content analysis is UA defined. Tests use common and easy words that most engines would analyze the same way, but you're right that we may need to modify tests if any engine analyzes them di

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: DisplayMediaStreamOptions monitorTypeSurfaces

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:51 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 9/6/23 11:01 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 to ship, while keeping an eye out for TAG feedback, in case it'd be > surprising and not match past feedback in the same vein. > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 5:41 PM 'François Beaufort'

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: DisplayMediaStreamOptions monitorTypeSurfaces

LGTM2 On 9/6/23 11:01 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 to ship, while keeping an eye out for TAG feedback, in case it'd be surprising and not match past feedback in the same vein. On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 5:41 PM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev wrote: On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:09 PM Franço

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience directFromSellerSignals via HTTP response headers

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 9:55 PM Paul Jensen wrote: > Contact emails > > > *pauljen...@chromium.org *Explainer > > *https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/69 > 5* > Can you clarify what this does, as the explainer is not very explain-y? IIUC, the curr

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: DisplayMediaStreamOptions monitorTypeSurfaces

LGTM1 to ship, while keeping an eye out for TAG feedback, in case it'd be surprising and not match past feedback in the same vein. On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 5:41 PM 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:09 PM François Beaufort > wrote: > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Fenced Frames - Functionality Updates

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 8:47 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:54 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> I also had an offline discussion with Daniel to confirm shipping as-is in >> M117, and sanitizing in 118 is acceptable from a security POV (trust but >> verify, etc). >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Japanese Phrase Line Breaking

Hi Koji, It looks like the tests for this are here: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-text/word-break/auto-phrase?label=experimental&label=master&aligned Since the implementation uses a heuristic and the spec doesn't define the precise rules, can you say something about the approach taken in the te

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

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 8:34 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 9/6/23 10:25 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 1:06 AM Luke wrote: > >> Apologies, https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/632 would be >> the relevant link. Will update in Chromestatus too. >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 8:44 AM Alex Russell wrote: > Sorry for the slow reply. I agree that Stefan's post is great, but I'm not > sure it's what we'd like to see in terms of design-time process here. In > general, we want to see features built with developer involvement, which is > why Exp

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 5:49 PM Alex Russell wrote: > Was corrected in the API OWNERS meeting re: TAG review; apologies for the > noise. LGTM2 > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-7 Alex Russell wrote: > >> Why is there no TAG review filed here? >> >> On Wednesday, Septembe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

Was corrected in the API OWNERS meeting re: TAG review; apologies for the noise. LGTM2 On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:45:28 AM UTC-7 Alex Russell wrote: > Why is there no TAG review filed here? > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> Thanks

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Fenced Frames - Functionality Updates

LGTM2 On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:54 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > I also had an offline discussion with Daniel to confirm shipping as-is in > M117, and sanitizing in 118 is acceptable from a security POV (trust but > verify, etc). > > LGTM1 to ship. > On 8/31/23 7:55 AM, 'Garrett Tanzer' via blink-dev

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

Why is there no TAG review filed here? On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > Thanks for adding that test Joey! > > > https://staging.wpt.fyi/results/css/selectors/valid-invalid-form-fieldset.html?label=pr_head&max-count=1&pr=41801 > > shows that it also

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

Sorry for the slow reply. I agree that Stefan's post is great, but I'm not sure it's what we'd like to see in terms of design-time process here. In general, we want to see features built with developer involvement, which is why Explainers and Incubation are important. Post-hoc documentation is

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid CSS pseudo-classes

Thanks for adding that test Joey! https://staging.wpt.fyi/results/css/selectors/valid-invalid-form-fieldset.html?label=pr_head&max-count=1&pr=41801 shows that it also passes on Firefox. Not sure why Safari didn't run, but that's not your fault and not something to block on. LGTM1, and thanks for

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: DisplayMediaStreamOptions monitorTypeSurfaces

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 3:09 PM François Beaufort wrote: > Contact emails > > fbeauf...@google.com > > elada...@google.com > > Explainer > > > https://github.com/eladalon1983/screen-share-explainers/blob/main/monitorTypeSurfaces_Explainer.md > > Specification > > > https://w3c.github.io/mediacaptu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

> Given that this is shipped in Safari, the TAG review is not a blocker based on our process. So I think you can keep it brief. TAG review is here! https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/894 On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:17 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 2:41 PM '

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

LGTM2 On 9/6/23 10:25 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 1:06 AM Luke wrote: Apologies, https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/632 would be the relevant link. Will update in Chromestatus too. On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 23:10:25 UTC+1 mike...@chromium.

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

LGTM1 On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 1:06 AM Luke wrote: > Apologies, https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/632 would be > the relevant link. Will update in Chromestatus too. > > On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 23:10:25 UTC+1 mike...@chromium.org wrote: > >> On 8/30/23 3:55 PM, Luke wrote: >> >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS pages with Cache-control: no-store and Back/Forward Cache

Thanks for your answers. I think we are on the same page since I too consider this to be of high value to users. The difference in perceived performance is so large that I understand that it is worth adding some magic for. On the other hand, as you also know, there is a risk and I want to be

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Relative Color Syntax (RCS)

LGTM2 On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 2:41 PM 'Aaron Krajeski' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks for your review Alex! > > > First, please use the Mozilla Standards Positions process to guage their > temperature rather than links to bugs: > > Chris Lilley opened a bug for that in Ju

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

Hi all, Another quick update: we began the rollout to 50% stable today. We will roll-out to 100% of Stable users on approximately Sept. 20th, 2023. Thanks, Kyra On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:48 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > I've filed https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1475667 > - it