Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Now that M123 implementation is aligned with the spec , can we ship the feature to M123? We're currently working on adding browser-specific blocking reasons (i.e. reasons that may block) to the spec in this PR

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 18:03, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:01 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo wrote: >>> Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concer

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:01 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo wrote: >> >>> Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! >>> >>>- I found >>>performance-navigation-timing-navigation-

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo wrote: > >> Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! >> >>- I found >>performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yuzu Saijo wrote: > Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! > >- I found >performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Thanks Domenic for bringing up the concerns! - I found performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:51 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 12:26, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola >>> wrote: >>> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't thi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 12:26, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola >> wrote: >> >>> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a >>> significant blocker for the Intent at this point. >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a significant >> blocker for the Intent at this point. >> >> On the tests and implementation: >> >>- I found >>perfo

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola wrote: > I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a significant > blocker for the Intent at this point. > > On the tests and implementation: > >- I found >performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a significant blocker for the Intent at this point. On the tests and implementation: - I found performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

This is now ready to ship, now that we have all the approvals on the ChromeStatus and the spec draft is close to agreement. Can you please take a look at this again? Thanks! On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Please also make sure to complete all of the other shipping gate reviews . Thanks! Chris On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Sounds good, I will create a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Sounds good, I will create a list on the explainer for the "may block" reasons then. Re: exposing NotRestoredReasons interface instead of object in idl: I'm working on the implementation in this CL

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked >> issue , I >> think the end goal should be: >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola wrote: > I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked > issue , I > think the end goal should be: > >- Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a spe

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked issue , I think the end goal should be: - Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a specification somewhere. (It doesn't have to be the HTML spec, e

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

+bfcache-dev I was talking to Fergal today and discussed this, and I am not sure about adding browser-specific reasons to the spec. For example, some reasons like "speech synthesis API is used" / "unload handler" are completely specific to Chrome, and it doesn't really make sense to add them to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Sorry for the delayed response. *> there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons interface defined in Chromium?* Let me address this implementation and delay the shipping until the chromium implementation matches the proposed spec. Thanks for pointing it out! Same for WPT. I will add tests

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

Also, checking the tests, it seems like the currently-implemented reasons don't match the spec. E.g. this test

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

I have some questions about how well the implementation here matches up with the spec. First, there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons interface defined in Chromium? The relevant attribute on PerformanceNavigationTiming returns object?

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:28 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails > > yu...@google.com, yu...@chromium.org, fer...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > > https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md > > Specification > > htt