[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: GPUAdapter info attribute

Contact emailsfbeauf...@google.com ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://gpuweb.github.io/gpuweb/#dom-gpuadapter-info Summary Functionality added to the WebGPU spec after its first shipment in a browser. Adds a synchronous GPUAdapter info attribute to retrieve the same information about the physic

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

Ah, sorry for the confusion. This request is for the V3 Origin Trial. V1 OT was from 117 to 122. V2 OT was from 122 to 125. And this V3 OT is from 127 to 129. On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 8:32 AM Patrick Meenan wrote: > Sorry, probably some confusion with the process. > > This is for the 3rd round

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Snap Events

Ok, looking at these explainers, I'm not sure we have enough to go on to approve this Intent right now. First, use-cases are listed, but no example code is provided to show what developers have to do today vs. how this new design will address what's problematic about the current situation. Thes

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-size-adjust with the two-value syntax

Pro-tip for API Owners who want to get their L-G-T-M's detected via email: start your reply with the magic word. ChromeStatus only looks for LGTMs in the first non-blank line of your message, which could be a whole paragraph since people usually don't break lines themselves in emails. The rea

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Snap Events

For the avoidance of doubt, we don't block on WG consensus. If there's sufficient evidence that a feature has been developed with high quality and strong developer support, that's enough for us. CSS WG blessing is strictly nice-to-have. On Tuesday, May 28, 2024 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-7 Emilio Cobos

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

Sorry, probably some confusion with the process. This is for the 3rd round of OT on the platform status entry (CompressionDictionaryTransportV3) so "extend" may not be the right terminology. V1 really ended at 122 and we had the same confusion the last time around and the V2 trial was created tha

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unrestricted WebUSB (available only to Isolated Web Apps)

Thanks, Matt. This is helpful. LGTM2. On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 1:05:39 PM UTC-7 Matt Reynolds wrote: > The list of protected interface classes is defined in the spec and > currently includes Audio, Human Interface Device (HID), Mass Storage, Smart > Card, Video, Audio/Video, and Wireless

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

Hi Tsuyoshi, Is this a request to extend the V1 OT as it appears in Chromestatus and in the title of this thread or are you trying to create a new V3 trial as it seems to be the intent based on the content of your intent? Note that V1 ended at M125, so teh extension would be for 4 milestones. On

[blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Relaunch: CHIPS on WebView

Hello Blink API Owners, We’re seeking approval to unship and relaunch CHIPS (a.k.a. partitioned cookies) in Android WebView only. Rationale The WebViewClient supports a method, shouldInterceptRequest

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unrestricted WebUSB (available only to Isolated Web Apps)

The list of protected interface classes is defined in the spec and currently includes Audio, Human Interface Device (HID), Mass Storage, Smart Card, Video, Audio/Video, and Wireless Controller: https://wicg.github.io/webusb/#has-a-protected-interface-class The blocklisted device list is maintaine

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-size-adjust with the two-value syntax

> On May 23, 2024, at 10:19 AM, Vladimir Levin wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:00 PM ChangSeok Oh wrote: > Hi Philip, > > I noticed that font-size-adjust-012.html, font-size-adjust-013.html, and > parts of font-size-adjust-computed.html (e.g., ch-width and ic-width) show > minor

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

Thanks all. LGTM to extend from 127 to 129 inclusive. On 5/29/24 10:51 AM, Patrick Meenan wrote: On the spec side of things, there is one more issue outstanding in the IETF discussion but it's not API-impacting and we expect that this latest draft

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Keyboard-focusable scroll containers Opt Out

Updated the chromestatus to 127-132, thanks! On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:58 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:47 AM Daniel Bratell > wrote: > >> That is 7 milestones. >> >> End at 132 inclusive instead? >> > Oops, off-by-one strikes again! > > Yes, 132 inclusive is the rig

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

> Please make sure that use of the old syntax triggers some kind of developer-facing warning, so that it won't be too hard to catch the cause for the behavior change in the few sites that will be affected. Sounds good, I will keep the existing console message in there, at least for a while. On We

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: The ServiceWorker static routing API not condition support

LGTM3 On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2024-05-29 10:31, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 2:39:02 AM UTC+2 Yoshisato Yanagisawa wrote: > > > > 2024年5月28日(火) 0:21 Vladimir Levin : > > > > On Fri, M

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: SkipAd media session action

Hey folks, A few questions from today's API OWNERS: - Are you investigating a generic action button type, the way we've added one for Notifications ? - If you have investigated that, would this feature be better

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Dispatch selectionchange event per element

hey folks, We spent a lot of time in API OWNERs today trying to understand this change, and we couldn't crisply describe: - What the old behaviour was - What the new behaviour is going to be - If we've analysed the potential for site breakage, and if not, if we should be adding use

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Importmap integrity

LGTM1 On 5/24/24 3:13 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 7:12 PM Panos Astithas wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 2:16 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:29 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Tuesday,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: The ServiceWorker static routing API not condition support

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-05-29 10:31, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 2:39:02 AM UTC+2 Yoshisato Yanagisawa wrote: 2024年5月28日(火) 0:21 Vladimir Levin : On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:43 AM Yoshisato Yanagisawa wrote: Contact email

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Keyboard-focusable scroll containers Opt Out

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:47 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > That is 7 milestones. > > End at 132 inclusive instead? > Oops, off-by-one strikes again! Yes, 132 inclusive is the right endpoint > /Daniel > On 2024-05-28 18:58, Vladimir Levin wrote: > > LGTM to experiment from 127 to 133 inclusive >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

Deprecating seems fine, especially since it's a relatively new API and less likely to be used on non-maintained sites, but removal seems a bit premature even if done slowly. Would it be better to let it bake a few milestones and see if a scary deprecation message threatening removal after the s

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

On the spec side of things, there is one more issue outstanding in the IETF discussion but it's not API-impacting and we expect that this latest draft , which this OT implements, has the final API shape. There will be s

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Keyboard-focusable scroll containers Opt Out

That is 7 milestones. End at 132 inclusive instead? /Daniel On 2024-05-28 18:58, Vladimir Levin wrote: LGTM to experiment from 127 to 133 inclusive On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:54 PM Di Zhang wrote: Thanks Mike. Your explanation makes sense and we are good with 6 milestones to start.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unrestricted WebUSB (available only to Isolated Web Apps)

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:49 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1 to ship this for IWAs only. > On 5/22/24 2:11 PM, Reilly Grant wrote: > > LGTM as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required > according to the IWA-specific API launch process >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:31 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > Hi there, > > Would you mind commenting on progress for the following items, per OT > renewal guidelines: > > Draft spec (early draft is ok, but must be spec-like and associated with > the appropriate standardization venue, or WICG) > Recentl

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Compression Dictionary Transport

Hi there, Would you mind commenting on progress for the following items, per OT renewal guidelines: Draft spec (early draft is ok, but must be spec-like and associated with the appropriate standardization venue, or WICG) TAG review (see exceptions) bit.ly/blink-signals requests Outreach for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Unrestricted WebUSB (available only to Isolated Web Apps)

LGTM1 to ship this for IWAs only. On 5/22/24 2:11 PM, Reilly Grant wrote: LGTM as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required according to the IWA-specific API launch process ). This is a good example of

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

LGTM3, and +1 to Yoav's suggestion. On 5/29/24 1:00 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 Please make sure that use of the old syntax triggers some kind of developer-facing warning, so that it won't be too hard to catch the cause for the behavior change in the few sites that will be affected

Re: [blink-dev] RE: Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: reporting timeouts & multiple-bids

LGTM3 On 5/29/24 4:34 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Thursday, May 23, 2024 at 1:01:53 AM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM1 On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 3:07 PM 'Erik Anderson' via blink-dev wrote: Hi, Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Dispatch selectionchange event per element

I'm sorry, but re-reading this, I realized that I don't fully understand this change and the plan here. Can you elaborate on: * What is the behavior change that we want to drive here? * Which part of that would be covered by the first CL? which by the second? * Where do we predict compat risk here?

Re: [blink-dev] RE: Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: reporting timeouts & multiple-bids

LGTM2 On Thursday, May 23, 2024 at 1:01:53 AM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM1 On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 3:07 PM 'Erik Anderson' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: Hi, Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the proposal and don’t have any significant concerns. We’ll contin

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: The ServiceWorker static routing API not condition support

LGTM1 On Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 2:39:02 AM UTC+2 Yoshisato Yanagisawa wrote: 2024年5月28日(火) 0:21 Vladimir Levin : On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:43 AM Yoshisato Yanagisawa < yyanagis...@chromium.org> wrote: Contact emails yyanagis...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/service-w

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecation of non-standard declarative shadow DOM serialization

LGTM2 On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:10 PM Vladimir Levin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:30 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 8:15 AM Vladimir Levin >> wrote: >> >>> Interoperability and Compatibility The use counter for getInnerHTML() ( https://chrom