Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebAuthn hints

On 6/4/24 9:50 PM, Adam Langley wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:36 PM Mike Taylor wrote: (oops, accidentally removed agl@ from To, fixing) On 6/4/24 11:35 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: Hi Adam, Could you please request reviews (or N/A, if you have internal approvals) for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Third-party Cookie Grace Period Opt-Out

Thanks! I was mixing up the grace period and the deprecation trial. For the second part -- thanks for the context -- could you add some of that context to the explainer? Thanks, -Caleb On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:52 PM Anton Maliev wrote: > Hi Caleb, > > The 3PCD grace period overrides any

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Third-party Cookie Grace Period Opt-Out

Hi Caleb, The 3PCD grace period overrides any origin/deprecation trial tokens. This is so it can act as an immediate mitigation between when a site notices a breakage and applies for the trial, and when it is able to deploy the tokens. So a site may choose to serve tokens for some percentage of

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

Hey Alex, Thanks for your feedback! I have talked with the previous owner (fbeaufort@) of this feature. Please see our answers below inline. - Are you investigating a generic action button type, the way we've added one for Notifications

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Third-party Cookie Grace Period Opt-Out

Hi -- just had some questions about this (I'm the Potassium open web platform security / privacy reviewer this week), as I was a bit confused... I'm trying to understand how the tokens work for origin trials. IIUC, the origin trial "enabled" behavior only happens if you serve the deprecation

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Line-breakable ruby

I see, is it because the exact behavior of text-wrap:balance and text-wrap:pretty are up to implementations? Since this is likely to remain the case indefinitely I think calling the test tentative isn't quite right, I'm not sure if the spec say "may" or "optional", but in spirit I think optional

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

Sorry, the ChromeStatus labels for things are a little out of sync with the launching-features documentation at the moment. I believe that you are on this step of the process: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#deprecate Which corresponds to the "Write up plan" stage in

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

Ah, I got them on the "Write up plan" stage accidentally. Also, you are correct that Debuggability has not responded yet and was still Blue. My apologies. Should I ask for approvals on a different stage? None of the stages on Deprecations seem to match an Intent to Deprecate, rather than a

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

I think this hit a chromestatus bug. A deprecation should start with approvals of the plan stage, including 3 votes from API Owners. This was incorrectly detected by chromestatus as a thread about the ship stage, which comes later. I have voted "review started" to get the "plan" stage API

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: Allow trusted bidding signals to trigger interest group updates

Response inline On Monday, June 3, 2024 at 10:16:06 PM UTC-4 Mike Taylor wrote: On 5/31/24 11:40 PM, Paul Jensen wrote: Contact emails pauljen...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/1095 Specification https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/1124 Summary

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Minimum size of within dropdown

Contact emails stephanie.zh...@microsoft.com, sa...@microsoft.com Specification https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/target-size-minimum.html Design docs https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/1026 Summary The WCAG

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

If so, it's not visible to me. They are all shown as grey, i.e. not started. Is there maybe more than one chromestatus entry and the review was done somewhere else? /Daniel On 2024-06-04 16:20, David Adrian wrote: > Can you please start (or possibly N/A) the

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

> Can you please start (or possibly N/A) the Privacy/Security/Enterprise/Debuggability/Testing pills in Chromestatus? I believe it already has all the pils approved. On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:18 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > Can you please start (or possibly N/A) the >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebAuthn hints

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:36 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > (oops, accidentally removed agl@ from To, fixing) > On 6/4/24 11:35 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > Could you please request reviews (or N/A, if you have internal approvals) > for Privacy, Security, and Enterprise bits in your

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

Thanks for the extra support :) On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, 09:30 Daniel Bratell wrote: > Doh, make that a bonus LGTM4. Sorry for the confusion. > > /Daniel > On 2024-06-04 09:29, Daniel Bratell wrote: > > LGTM3 > > /Daniel > On 2024-05-30 19:41, Vladimir Levin wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Wed, May 29,

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

Doh, make that a bonus LGTM4. Sorry for the confusion. /Daniel On 2024-06-04 09:29, Daniel Bratell wrote: LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-05-30 19:41, Vladimir Levin wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 5/24/24 3:13 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:

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

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-05-30 19:41, Vladimir Levin wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:41 AM Mike Taylor wrote: 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

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

LGTM3 for the deprecation in 127. I'd like to hold off on stamping the removal approval until later but threatening (well, targetting) removal in 129 seems ok. /Daniel On 2024-05-31 02:44, Mason Freed wrote: Thanks for the LGTMs! On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:54 AM Daniel Bratell wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: 0.0.0.0 for Private Network Access

Can you please start (or possibly N/A) the Privacy/Security/Enterprise/Debuggability/Testing pills in Chromestatus? /Daniel On 2024-06-03 21:56, 'David Adrian' via blink-dev wrote: > Can you please elaborate on the analysis: how low is the usage and how did you check that the use is malware?

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

Hi all, thanks for all the comments and LGTMs. Let's moving on to the second CL. Thanks! On Saturday, June 1, 2024 at 3:46:08 AM UTC+8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM3 for the first CL > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 6:22 PM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> LGTM2, to land the first CL. >> >> Thanks

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Line-breakable ruby

LGTM3. It might be worth manually testing popular Japanese sites that use ruby to make sure this doesn't cause issues. But, I think it would be hard for sites to depend on specific line breaking behavior in a way that could cause breakage. On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:53 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Line-breakable ruby

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-06-04 04:16, TAMURA, Kent wrote: The test "text-wrap.tentative.html" is tentative because of text-wrap:balance and text-wrap:pretty.  I'll do: - File a spec issue for them, and - Make a non-tetative test for text-wrap:nowrap. On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 5:57 PM Philip