Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

standard naming rant can we call this "IP Address Protection"? My initial read of the title was "Intellectual Property Protection", and I opened it with a sense of dread expecting to find DRM-related stuff and a long argument. There are IETF efforts related to automatic relays (MASQUE,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

This is going to change observable network behavior, right? The TAG liases with IETF, and if there aren't already active conversations in IETF about this change, I worry that it will be received poorly. On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 7:15 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > I'm recused from voting on this feature

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 4:42 AM fantasai wrote: > On 10/19/23 03:41, TAMURA, Kent wrote: > > > > Specification > > > > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#ruby-display > > > > Summary > > > > New CSS displayproperty values, "ruby", "ruby-base", and "ruby-text", > are > > added.

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

That would fall into the bucket of early reviews. If the early reviews template requires too much time, happy to optimize some of the inefficiencies.Early review also shouldn't require multiple stakeholder signal, although we haven't applied that rule consistently. I'm working on a proposal to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

Oh, I made a mistake! This intent should drop the part of and 'ruby-base'. I don't intend to introduce the "ruby + rb + rt" model. I'd like to change the current "ruby + rt" model to "display:ruby + display:ruby-text". Sorry for the confusion! Anyway I should make a PR for the HTML

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

I'm recused from voting on this feature so with my API OWNER hat off (or maybe just back and to the side to make me look cool...), it's possible that we submit an FYI review in the future ahead of an I2S. That said, this is a feature that arguably does not materially alter web platform APIs,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:33 PM Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > My reading of #1771 is that the only thing keeping out of HTML is the > lack of a Blink or WebKit implementation. It looks like > https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6478 is already written to improve > the text, so the only thing for

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

Thanks Chris and the API Owners for having this discussion! I am sympathetic to this being a hard problem with the strong potential to set a bad precedent. On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 3:00 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:59 AM Chris Harrelson > wrote: > >> The API owners

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience clearOriginJoinedAdInterestGroups() & interest group limit changes & kAnonStatus

Contact emails pauljen...@chromium.org Explainer clearOriginJoinedAdInterestGroups(): https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/829 interest group limit changes: https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/839 kAnonStatus: https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/714 Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

Why has the TAG not been consulted? On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 3:09 PM 'Brianna Goldstein' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > *Correction*: > The link to the entry on the Chrome Platform Status was incorrect. Below > is the corrected link > >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

*Correction*: The link to the entry on the Chrome Platform Status was incorrect. Below is the corrected link https://chromestatus.com/feature/5111460239245312 On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:52 PM Brianna Goldstein wrote: > Contact emails > > Brianna Goldstein , James Bradley > , David Schinazi > >

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

TAG review of explainers before WG agreement is optimal and recommended! On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 1:41 PM Harald Alvestrand wrote: > what's your advice on going to TAG with respect to getting agreement in > the WG? > I've got a couple of spec changes now that I really would like TAG to > review

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: IP Protection Phase 0

Contact emails Brianna Goldstein , James Bradley , David Schinazi Explainer IP Protection formerly known as Gnatcatcher Specification None Summary IP Protection is a feature that sends

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

what's your advice on going to TAG with respect to getting agreement in the WG? I've got a couple of spec changes now that I really would like TAG to review early, but they consist of an explainer + PR because the WG doesn't have agreement to merge yet. Harald On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:33 PM

Re: [blink-dev] PSA: request TAG feedback early!

+1 The TAG has introduced (~year ago, I think?) an "Early Design Review", which is a lot more lightweight than the "Specification Review". https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/new/choose If you haven't gone through this part of the process before, I'd encourage you to try again and

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Printing API

Contact emails greengr...@google.com Explainer https://github.com/GrapeGreen/web-printing Specification TBD Summary Enables deeper integration with printer-related functionality in web applications. This API provides a set of JavaScript methods that allow developers to query local printers,

[blink-dev] Intent to ship: Interoperable Pointer and Mouse boundary events after DOM changes

Contact emailsmus...@chromium.org, fla...@chromium.org Specificationhttps://www.w3.org/TR/uievents/#events-mouseevent-event-order Summary After an event target gets removed from the DOM, the logical target of the pointer as implied by the Pointer and Mouse boundary events (i.e. over, out, enter

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

On 10/19/23 03:41, TAMURA, Kent wrote: Specification https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#ruby-display Summary New CSS displayproperty values, "ruby", "ruby-base", and "ruby-text", are added. The default display values of , and are changed to them, and ruby layout

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Protected Audience Bidding & Auction Services

LGTM to experiment from M119 to M121 (inclusive). Extending another 3 milestones if needed will be fairly mechanical, given our current policy

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:59 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > The API owners met yesterday and discussed this intent. Our consensus was > that we would like to wait until another browser has implemented and is > shipping :state before we approve shipping it in Chromium. We also don't > recommend

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Deprecate old CSS custom state syntax

The API owners met yesterday and discussed this intent. Our consensus was that we would like to wait until another browser has implemented and is shipping :state before we approve shipping it in Chromium. We also don't recommend spending more time on further bikeshet spec discussions for it in the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: COOP: restrict-properties

There are certain use cases that are not solved with postMessage and closed only. There is some requirement to focus (whenever user shifts to some other tab with popup opened in background) & close ( to avoid unnecessary popup window to be remained opened in background),so can we have hese

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Protected Audience Bidding & Auction Services

> Please fill out and start the reviews for Privacy, Security and Debuggability in your chromestatus entry, thanks. These are all in review now. Sorry, I forgot about this new step. > Can you clarify what the proposed end milestone will be? I hope the Origin Trial to last M119 through M121,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

My reading of #1771 is that the only thing keeping out of HTML is the lack of a Blink or WebKit implementation. It looks like https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6478 is already written to improve the text, so the only thing for Kent to do is to make sure that this change implements that PR and

Re: [blink-dev] Android shared workers

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 5:20 AM Kenji Baheux wrote: > Compelling use cases (e.g. actual & reasonably popular products that work > better or only work when sharedworker are available *on mobile*) would > help boost the priority over other interop requests. > There were enough use cases for Apple

Re: [blink-dev] Android shared workers

Compelling use cases (e.g. actual & reasonably popular products that work better or only work when sharedworker are available *on mobile*) would help boost the priority over other interop requests. On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:04 PM Ben Kelly wrote: > FWIW, chrome on android is the last holdout

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:41 PM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > Contact emailstk...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#ruby-display > > Summary > > New CSS display property values, "ruby", "ruby-base", and "ruby-text", > are added. The default display

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Ruby-specific display values

Contact emailstk...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-ruby-1/#ruby-display Summary New CSS display property values, "ruby", "ruby-base", and "ruby-text", are added. The default display values of , and are changed to them, and ruby layout respects these