Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent-to-Ship: MediaRecorder keyframe configurability

Thanks for filing https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/39642, I've asked there for more details on what it would take to test this. The spec change added two dictionary members to https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-record/#mediarecorderoptions-section which means that it would at least

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Use RegExp v flag instead of u for HTML pattern attribute

1412729#c46 | ✅ | >> | https://www.thebay.com | >> https://crbug.com/1412729#c45 | ✅ | >> >> This is not quite a "random" sample, as I instead started with the most >> common s

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Use RegExp v flag instead of u for HTML pattern attribute

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:28 PM Rick Byers wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 3:41 PM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> I wonder if we can get enough confidence with less work than >> investigating 40 randomly chosen sites from UseCounter hits. >> >> This is a p

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Use RegExp v flag instead of u for HTML pattern attribute

ps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/832 I’ll update the >>>> ChromeStatus entry to refer to it. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:21:16 AM UTC-7 mt...@google.com wrote: >>>>> >>>> Thanks to the UseCounter + UKM + M112 hit

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate module size limit for WebAssembly.Module()

Hey Andreas, Do you know what the limits of other browsers are? If testing a 1 GB module is too slow to be reliable (sometimes timing out) then perhaps there's a large-ish module you can test with that still exceeds the current limits? Note that you could also add a manual test in WPT for the rea

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS :lang pseudo class level 4

xtended-filtering.html >> and >> https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/LayoutTests/fast/selectors/lang-extended-filtering-with-string-arguments.html >> >> About the standards-positions issue, I filed it on >> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/735

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Use RegExp v flag instead of u for HTML pattern attribute

I took a look at https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7908 and it looks like there's agreement to merge it, but it's waiting on this intent to be approved. Normally we block in the other direction, but that's fine, as long as the spec change is merged. Looks like there's broad support for this chan

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS :lang pseudo class level 4

Hi Roger, I took a look for the tests, and am wondering if the tests added here are for Level 4? https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/37950 At least some of them are already passing in Chrome Dev (with experimental features enabled), but not Chrome stable, so some of these tests seem re

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: The Popover API

LGTM3 On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:52 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 3/21/23 3:01 AM, Noam Rosenthal wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 8:13 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:19 AM Noam Rosenthal >> wrote: >> >>> Voicing some concern about this API that I've raised befo

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: The Popover API

Hi Noam, Do you know if these sanitizers generally work as allowlists or blocklists? In other words, will the new popover attribute be allowed through current versions of those sanitizers? Best regards, Philip On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 9:19 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: > Voicing some concern about t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS font-palette property animation

Hi Munira, Do you think this will require any changes to DevTools for debuggability? There's a checklist at https://goo.gle/devtools-checklist, where the key question is "how would a web developer making use of your new WPF test and debug their code?" Best regards, Philip On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: The Popover API

Hi Mason, This will be great, looking forward to seeing it ship! Two questions inline and bonus API-owner-hat-off question: Do you have a use counter for this feature which you'll use to track adoption? Do you have a ballpark guess about what the usage will be like a year from now? (There's an

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS headline balancing

with the test coverage here, does it cover >>> most important corner cases? >> >> >> I'm keeping eyes on incoming issues and feedback. It's a pleasant >> surprise that more web devs than expected are excited with this feature, >> and gave us great fe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS headline balancing

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:35 PM Koji Ishii wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:51 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:02 AM Koji Ishii wrote: >> >> >>> Looks like the tests are in >>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS headline balancing

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:02 AM Koji Ishii wrote: > Looks like the tests are in >> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-text/white-space?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=balance. >> There's one failing test there, do you know why that is? > > > Thanks for pointing this out. The

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation rules: Content Security Policy extension

LGTM3, thanks for making this change visible. On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:42 PM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > LGTM2. > I agree with Yoav. > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 6:59 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> LGTM1. This seems like a reasonable, compatible addition which doesn't >> modify the interop risk calculu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

LGTM1 to ship this change with a feature flag which we can use as a kill switch. Adding use counters so that we can get examples of breakage *if* it happens would be great too, if it's not too much overhead. On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:04 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > Hi Eli, > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

;ve updated my isValidHost() util to support this change. Could someone >> please have another look and let me know if my implementation now aligns >> well with the spec? >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:26:18 PM UTC-7 dom...@chromium.org wrote: >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

gt; CL is created by an external developer, would you suggest creating a > feature flag for it as well? > > Jiacheng Guo > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:31 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Philip Jägenstedt >> wrote: >> &g

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:05 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:46 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> To simplify and keep this moving, I've filed >> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/759 as an umbrella >> issue for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

To simplify and keep this moving, I've filed https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/759 as an umbrella issue for anything URL in Interop 2023. My view is that we can't improve our risk assessment of this by much with metrics, because we can't distinguish between harmless and serious

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Forbidden and escaped host characters compliant with the URL standard

Hi Eli, Jumping in here to answer your question since it was easy enough to test. `new URL('https://example!.com').host` in Chrome currently returns "example% 21.com", but in Safari it's "example!.com". With the proposed change, Chrome will match Sarari. I've also confirmed that your isValidHost(

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS headline balancing

Hi Koji, Looks like the tests are in https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-text/white-space?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&view=subtest&q=balance. There's one failing test there, do you know why that is? And overall, are you happy with the test coverage here, does it cover most important corner

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS "overflow" media features

I think this feature falls under Implementations of already-defined consensus-based standards in our process, and Signals from other implementations in an intent-to-ship

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Legacy callback-based RTCPeerConnection.getStats() API

LGTM2, even better! On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 5:04 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > SGTM! > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:40 PM Henrik Boström wrote: > >> Yes, I think throwing in M117, stable on Aug 30 would be even better. >> >> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:32:21 PM

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Legacy callback-based RTCPeerConnection.getStats() API

I think the overall timeline looks great, the final removal is almost a year from now, after the 2023 holiday season. However, I'd like to bikeshed "Throw an exception if the trial is not used in Stable in M119 (Release: October 31, 2023)". This is when the breakage will be apparent to most users/

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Resoure Hint "Least Restrictive" CSP

LGTM3 On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:07 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: > Anyone for a LGTM3? :) > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 6:24 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> LGTM2 >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:58 AM Yoav Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> LGTM1 >>> >>> Thanks for cleaning this up and landing on a solution that's

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URL Standard-compatible IPv4 embedded IPv6 host parser

[::1.2]"; is worth testing I'll leave to your judgment. On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 6:09 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM3 > > First of all, thank you for working on this! > > I think adding a use counter is probably too much overhead for this > change, but I took a look [1

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URL Standard-compatible IPv4 embedded IPv6 host parser

LGTM3 First of all, thank you for working on this! I think adding a use counter is probably too much overhead for this change, but I took a look [1] in httparchive for the strings 'http://[::' and 'https://[::' and got 123 and 2 matches respectively. Among the top ranked sites are https://www.che

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebGLContextEvent on Web Workers

Hi Josh, Thanks for taking a look at this and noticing it's kind of fragile and broken :) The idlharness.js setup has evolved step by step from IDL manually copied from specs and inlined into specs, to today's setup of the interfaces/*.idl being updated by automated PRs, but *not* reviewed/merged

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Fetch: Headers.getSetCookie()

LGTM1 On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 7:05 PM Andreu Botella wrote: > Contact emails abote...@igalia.com, ri...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-headers-getsetcookie > > Design docs > https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/973#issuecomment-902578584 >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I will recuse myself from this one since I have an interest in the success of Interop 2022 (and 2023), but I think shipping this makes sense. Chrome is the last browser to not support it at all, and we've seen with other features that the time it becomes available in all browsers can be an inflecti

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: WebRTC's RTCStats of type "track" and "stream".

LGTM1 for the plan to remove in 112 with reverse OT until 115. We discussed in today's meeting whether we should also have an enterprise policy, but landed on not requesting it. The reason is that it's quite possible that this change only breaks Twilio and nothing else, at all. That's because of t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

it or > they will simply not use the feature. > I've therefore created an issue > <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8399> to discuss this. > > Sebastian > > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 9:46:38 AM UTC+1 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> Hi Oriol

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

t; back here to allow for a new attempt at building more consensus. As always, >> some breaking changes may be possible after that point too, but it'll >> depend on the realities of web compat. >> >> API owners also agreed that we'd look for 4 LGTMs in this case ins

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

ongoing > discussions around this topic on the CSSWG, for example today there's a > special meeting only for CSS Nesting topics: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2023Jan/0011.html > > What's their impact on the current implementation? > > Thanks, >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Streaming declarative shadow DOM

LGTM3, that this is already enabled in WebKit makes it a pretty simple case. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:34 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:27 PM Rick Byers wrote: > >> Thanks Mason. LGTM1 >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:59 PM Mason Freed wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Updated dialog initial focus algorithm

Is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8199 blocked mainly on implementer interest? Do other browsers exactly match the behavior before this spec change, or is it more complicated than that? What I'm getting at is whether we have confidence that we'll have eventual interop on the new behavior. On

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Add containerName and containerQuery, update conditionText

LGTM1 Thanks Daniil for that httparchive analysis. The second one looking for use of the @container rule should include all cases that could matter. 56 unique matches is a very small number when it comes to httparchive compat analysis. I double checked just one of them (botaniska.se, a nice park i

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Nesting

I think that we should ship this. It's a high profile and in-demand new feature , so I have a few questions and comments first. Taking a look at the open spec issues ( https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/labels/css-nesting-1) some

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Root Font Units: 'rex', 'rch', 'ric', 'rlh'

but nothing else I guess. None of > them are in Firefox. > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:11 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> I see the Gecko issue has now been resolved as positive, which is great. >> >> Are any of these units already supported in Firefox or Safari,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS Root Font Units: 'rex', 'rch', 'ric', 'rlh'

I see the Gecko issue has now been resolved as positive, which is great. Are any of these units already supported in Firefox or Safari, or would we be the first to ship all of them? (I took a look at one test and have a guess, but just as well to ask.) On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 01:48 Mike Taylor wro

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to experiment: Deprecate and remove merchant identity in "canmakepayment"

LGTM2 assuming tests matching the spec land and pass. On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 18:26 Rick Byers wrote: > Shoot, sorry - I think a downside of re-using an existing thread is that > it doesn't show up in our approval tooling as an item needing action from > API owners. > > Thanks for landing the spe

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Trigonometric functions

update the implementation before it reaches stable that might be good, but it depends on the details of what's decided. On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 5:43 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > For atan2(), is the behavior you intent to ship (using its double value) > per spec and does it match what

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Trigonometric functions

For atan2(), is the behavior you intent to ship (using its double value) per spec and does it match what Firefox and Safari do? Here are the tests: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-values/acos-asin-atan-atan2-computed.html?label=master&label=experimental&product=chrome&product=firefox&product=safari

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: font-variant-alternates and the @font-feature-values at-rule

LGTM1, I'm very happy to see this ship. I tried out https://roettsch.es/montecarlo.html in Firefox and Safari, and those are some very swishy swashes, looking forward to that demo also working in Chrome :) And the tests are here: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-fonts?label=master&label=experimenta

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Use Non-Transitional IDNA Processing in URLs

tual/idna-2008/ > > Chrome Status form asked for a link to wpt.fyi and I couldn't figure out > how to link to a virtual test suite so I said no. Updated the CS entry. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:00 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> Hi Mustafa, >> >> Than

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Use Non-Transitional IDNA Processing in URLs

Hi Mustafa, Thanks for much for working on this. The initial email says this isn't tested by WPT, but I think this is the change that will make this test (part of Interop 2022) pass: https://wpt.fyi/results/url/toascii.window.html?label=experimental&label=master&product=chrome&product=firefox&prod

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to ship: Media Session API: Presenting slides actions

LGTM3 On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:41 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Indeed!! > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:33 PM Rick Byers wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:55 AM Yoav Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> LGTM1 >>> >> >> That's actually an LGTM2 >> >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 4:53 PM Rick Byers wrote: >>>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Quick intensive timer throttling of loaded background pages

The potential compat risk of this seems significant, if it means that pages can start misbehaving or breaking after 10 seconds in the background, which seems common in workflows like logins or ecommerce, where you might be flipping back and forth between tabs to find passwords, confirm credit card

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Methods that change Array and TypedArray by copy

LGTM2 On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 5:32 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM1 > > /Daniel > On 2022-11-08 21:32, Shu-yu Guo wrote: > > Contact emails s...@chromium.org > > Explainer https://github.com/tc39/proposal-change-array-by-copy > > Specification https://tc39.es/proposal-change-array-by-copy > > Sum

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Color Module Level 4 + color-mix()

t; > cc-ing Peter Müller for Dev Tools specific stuff. > On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 8:12:07 AM UTC-4 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> Will the new DevTools support ship at the same time as that feature? Is >> there a tracking bug for that? >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 20

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Color Module Level 4 + color-mix()

Will the new DevTools support ship at the same time as that feature? Is there a tracking bug for that? On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 7:09 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:01 PM Aaron Krajeski wrote: > >> >> I think these 2 TAG reviews are related to this: >> https://github.c

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Send Mouse Events to Disabled Form Controls

Will this match the behavior of Firefox exactly? Is there a test that currently passes in Firefox which will start passing in Chrome when we enable this? https://wpt.fyi/results/dom/events/Event-dispatch-click.html already passes and https://wpt.fyi/results/html/semantics/forms?label=pr_head&max-c

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Auto range support for font descriptors inside @font-face rule

Thanks Munira for the detailed explanation, and thanks for filing the Gecko and WebKit bugs! I think that from a web developer's point of view, this won't be a feature that you actively use, but sensible defaults and the lack of a surprising behavior/bug. Thanks for sorting that out! LGTM1 On We

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Last Baseline Item Alignment

The problem with feature detection here happens once in a while, and flex gap is a prominent previous example. But when it's already happened, there's really not much we can do to fix the situation. So I'm very much inclined to LGTM this. But I see some tests

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Snap border, outline and column-rule widths before layout

LGTM1 with some strings attached. We discussed this in the API owners meeting (present: Chris, Yoav, Mike, Daniel, me) Since this matches other implementations and is somewhat deliberate unspec'd, shipping this sounds good. Very nice to see highly starred interop issues being fixed :) Great that

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Android OSK resizes visual viewport by default + opt-out

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:58 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:01 PM Rune Lillesveen > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:38 PM David Bokan wrote: >> >>> Sure, I'll start on a PR. >>> >>> Taking another look, there

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Sync methods for FileSystemSyncAccessHandle in File System Access API

LGTM3, now is the time to make the change, before the old behavior is locked in by web compat. On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:09 AM Mike West wrote: > LGTM2, seconding Yoav's note to ensure that folks you know are using the > API test their code earlier rather than later to shake out bugs this > beha

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URLPattern ignoreCase

LGTM1 The spec PR was merged and it's live here: https://wicg.github.io/urlpattern/#options-ignore-case On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 5:08 PM Ben Kelly wrote: > Contact emailswanderv...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/urlpattern/issues/148#issuecomment-965193134 > > Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Android OSK resizes visual viewport by default + opt-out

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:01 PM Rune Lillesveen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 3:38 PM David Bokan wrote: > >> Sure, I'll start on a PR. >> >> Taking another look, there does seem to be some basic parsing of the meta >> in CSS Viewport . >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Android OSK resizes visual viewport by default + opt-out

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 7:07 PM Chris Harrelson wrote: > (API owner hat off for this intent, I'm one of the people working on this > feature change) > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 1:32 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> I think this plan makes sense, but the la

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Android OSK resizes visual viewport by default + opt-out

I think this plan makes sense, but the lack of a spec makes it unusual. Can you say more about how this will eventually be spec'd, and who is signed up to push that work to completion? Since Firefox Android would also need to change to get full interop, a stronger statement from Mozilla would be

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:20 PM Shu-yu Guo wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:53 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> I assume that like most JS features this isn't tested in WPT but rather >> in Test262. Are the tests for this in Test262 all passing? >> >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

I assume that like most JS features this isn't tested in WPT but rather in Test262. Are the tests for this in Test262 all passing? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:47 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 to ship group and groupToMap (a bit confusing that the summary uses > the old names). > > /Daniel > On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove ImageDecoderInit.premultiplyAlpha.

LGTM3, to remove in 108 without deprecation period. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:25 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 9/21/22 7:44 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > It seems unlikely that even the (few) developers who access this data are > somehow relying on it. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

LGTM3, seems best to have a deprecation period unless the code is causing trouble. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2, thanks. > > On 9/21/22 10:59 AM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > > Sounds like a good plan. In that case, I am requesting to: > >1. Print a deprecation w

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: tech() function support in @font-face src: descriptor

e other levels of support. I imagine they >>>>> may >>>>> sound unrelated or wide vs. specific, but from the perspective of >>>>> evolution >>>>> of font support in browsers, from my point of view they make sense as >>>>> a mea

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: tech() function support in @font-face src: descriptor

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:02 PM Alex Russell wrote: > We discussed this at today's API OWNERs meeting and, while I realise I > should perhaps be directing most of these comments at the CSS WG more > broadly, I'm concerned that the bundle of features that this function is > designed to support are

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: tech() function support in @font-face src: descriptor

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:11 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 3:09:39 PM UTC+2 Dominik Röttsches wrote: > >> (re-sent from @chromium.org address) >> >> Contact emailsdr...@chromium.org >> >> ExplainerNone >> > > I think that a short explainer outlining exactly what you're

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: ContentVisibilityAutoStateChanged event

LGTM3 on the assumption that the spec discussion will be sorted out and spec fixed by the time this rolls out to stable. On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:47 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 conditional on driving the discussion on the Mozilla position thread > to completion and making sure the spec text pr

Re: [blink-dev] Developer pain as a result of "introducing blink_wpt_tests"

I'd like to second that, thanks Weizhong! On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 5:07 AM Domenic Denicola wrote: > This is great news! Thanks for being receptive to feedback and to working > to get us back to a more-productive state. > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 8:53 AM Xianzhu Wang > wrote: > >> Hi Blink devs

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS 'ic' Length Unit

Thank you for sharing! On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:50 AM 一丝 wrote: > Discussion on Chinese social media see: > https://twitter.com/yisibl/status/1555391638876274688 > I used Google Translate to make it easier to read. > [image: FZXca3iUYAAr1kn.jpeg] > 在2022年8月10日星期三 UTC+8 02:47:21 写道： > >> Hi Yunf

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS 'ic' Length Unit

Hi Yunfei, The currently specified behavior has already shipped in Firefox and Safari. If this is going to change, it's important that all browsers make the change, so that we don't end up with non-interoperable behavior. Do you know of any fonts where 水 and 永 have different widths? Also curious

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: WebCodecs dequeue event

LGTM1, seems like a simple and useful addition! On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 at 22:38 Chris Cunningham wrote: > Contact emailschcunning...@chromium.org > > Explainerhttps://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/blob/main/explainer.md > > Specificationhttps://w3c.github.io/webcodecs > > Summary > > This feature tracks

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS 'ic' Length Unit

LGTM🎉 On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 10:27 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM3 > > /Daniel > On 2022-08-05 07:47, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:08 AM slightlyoff via Chromestatus < > admin+slightly...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> -- >> You received this messag

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Element.isVisible method

hub.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:36 AM Philip Jägenstedt >> wrote: >> >>> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7317 is still ongoing, so I >>> think we should just wait until it's settled in the next CSSWG

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Writable directory prompts for the File System Access API

Hi Austin, Would you mind filing a bug for this testing capability for WPT at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Atype%3Auntestable? It sounds like what you need here is a WebDriver end point that configures the browser to automatically resolve a showDi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS :modal Pseudo Class

LGTM1 to ship this with the latest spec changes applied, and WPT written and passing for that. On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > > Does Chromium implementation match the spec resolution, so :modal > applies to fullscreen too? > > Are there tests checking that? > > Ch

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: Response.json()

LGTM3 The TAG review has been sitting for a month now, and this proposal has already received scrutiny in the spec discussion. If there's feedback (on naming or otherwise) before this reaches stable, we should take it into account. On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:54 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > O

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Element.isVisible method

ship > gaplessly if reviews come back green. > > Thoughts? > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:42 AM Philip Jägenstedt >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Chris! >>> >&

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Element.isVisible method

; > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:03 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Element.isVisible method

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49 PM Chris Harrelson wrote: > > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:44 PM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> It looks like the TAG was prodded, since the "2022-06-13-week" >> milestone was just added to >> https://github.com/w3ctag/

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Element.isVisible method

It looks like the TAG was prodded, since the "2022-06-13-week" milestone was just added to https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/734. However, I don't think it's reasonable for us to keep waiting for the TAG until mid-June when this proposal already had plenty of input from other vendors

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Remove: Legacy Client Hint Mode

LGTM2 While usage going up is concerning, I don't think we could improve our understanding of the risk with any additional metrics, since usage is on the server side. Testing of sites that receive the header is the best we can do,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Topics API

I was not clear about the connection between this intent and 2 other intents that are under review now. While my LGTM stands, please make sure that the total package of 3 make sense :) On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:49 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM to experiment > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Topics API

LGTM to experiment On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:31 PM Josh Karlin wrote: > Contact emails > > yao...@chromium.org, jkar...@chromium.org > > Developers interested in the Topics API can also join the Topics API > announcements > group

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Event.path

t; I'll update this thread when I'm done. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:28 AM Mike Taylor >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for digging into this Philip! Agree that HTTPArchive analysis >>>> will be pretty helpful to help us make

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Event.path

m and that things could break, but then we need to look at if it's already broken in Firefox and Safari. It may well turn out that as actually used, it's harmless. Best regards, Philip On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 5:37 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:50 AM Yoav Weis

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Event.path

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:50 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:49:55 AM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote: > >> Hey Xiaocheng, >> >> Thanks for working on improving interop! A few thoughts and questions >> below. >> >> On 2/8/22 7:25 PM, Xiaocheng Hu wrote: >> >> Contact emails

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

Hi Ethan, It's great to see this Intent to Prototype. Subgrid tends to come up as important in web developer surveys, the latest being State of CSS 2021: https://2021.stateofcss.com/en-US/opinions/#browser_interoperability_features https://2021.stateofcss.com/en-US/opinions/#currently_missing_from

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: MediaRecorderErrorEvent API

Good catch, thanks Domenic! Dom put up https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-record/pull/212 to change the spec here. Imranur, once the spec change is made, I would suggest sending an Intent to Ship. An Intent to Prototype is for when you want to implement something behind a flag, but not ship it y

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Pickling for Async Clipboard API

gt; APIs behave the same in Chromium, FF, old Edge and IE, but since Apple > opposed to these changes we couldn’t include it in the official clipboard > API spec. > > > > *From:* Domenic Denicola > *Sent:* Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:01 AM > *To:* Anupam Snigdha > *C

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Pickling for Async Clipboard API

Hi Anupam, It sounds like https://github.com/w3c/clipboard-apis/pull/162 is blocked on the objections, and thus the `unsanitized` option won't be in https://w3c.github.io/clipboard-apis/. If we ship this, will it be defined by any spec? Is it an option to take this proposal to the WICG? Although w

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebRTC Scalable Video Coding extensions

s/issues/399 > > Here are links to the related Media Capabilities issues: > https://github.com/w3c/media-capabilities/issues/182 > https://github.com/w3c/media-capabilities/issues/183 > https://github.com/w3c/media-capabilities/issues/185 > > > > > On Wednesday, December

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebRTC Scalable Video Coding extensions

Hi Harald, Can you spell out what the uncontroversial parts of this would be? Looking at the IDL in https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-svc/ it looks like it's all about modes. My guess is that it's RTCRtpEncodingParameters's scalabilityMode, but is that right? Best regards, Philip On Mon, Dec 6, 2021

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS cascade layers

Hi Xiaocheng, Can you identify the tests in https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-cascade?label=master&label=experimental&product=chrome&product=firefox&product=safari&aligned that are for cascade layers? I think revert-layer-*.html are relevant to this intent, but is failing in Chrome Dev. Is this beca

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Pickling for Async Clipboard API

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:08 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > > > On 18/11/2021 22:30, 'Anupam Snigdha' via blink-dev wrote: > > /WebKit/: Neutral > > (https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/334#issuecomment-933939592 > > ) > > Web

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Pickling for Async Clipboard API

Hi Anupam, I see that the two pull requests on the spec are still open: https://github.com/w3c/clipboard-apis/pull/158 https://github.com/w3c/clipboard-apis/pull/162 I see there's a lot of discussion on both, with folks from other vendors involved, and it looks like some points are contentious. C

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove clamping of setTimeout(..., 0)

nd have the >> risky option enabled by configs, rather than disabled by it) >> That would mean that we'd need engineers on the Chrome and Edge side of >> things to own the configs that turn this on. >> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 8:41 AM Philip Jägenstedt >> wr

<    1   2   3   >