Thank you for checking. LGTM1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:09 AM 'Munira Tursunova' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Checked the websites with potential breakages, don't observe any > breakages. > The only website with visual differences is > https://css3test.com/#css-values-5, but it "checks which CSS3 features > the browser recognizes, not whether they are implemented correctly." > (pasted from the website) and links to CSS Values 5 attr() spec: > https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-5/#attr-notation, so should be updated > accordingly. > > Updated the doc > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xrREMWVQiQbDr6OvALHvBko7hokpM44nTPxzEGE7PSs/edit?usp=sharing> > with the findings. > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:52 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > Why would we change this? We backed the original intent with the usual >> conditions: once the concrete is poured, it's done. I'm not inclined to >> approve. >> >> That is not, as a general rule, how API owner approval is interpreted, >> or (as far as I know) intended. It also drastically conflicts with >> usual practice, which has substantial weight of precedent behind it - >> while we of course balance the cost of any changes with the benefits, >> we are generally *open* to changes requested by other implementors, >> particularly when we're the first to advance an API. >> >> In this particular case, the cost is virtually nil - it's a brand new >> API with minimal usage, and it's a change to a *default* keyword that >> would rarely be written explicitly anyway. (We only have it at all, >> rather than just relying on a keyword being absent, due to my own API >> design preferences, and the fact that it aids us with a small >> back-compat issue.) The benefit of "make other implementors happier >> with the API" definitely outweighs the costs here, by any reasonable >> metric. >> >> But even in more controversial/costly cases, I strongly contest the >> principle you're trying to establish here. We *do* make changes, even >> ones with compat pain, as part of our unofficial contract with other >> implementors, to make it more palatable to everyone when we push ahead >> faster than other implementors are comfortable with or capable of >> matching. It's always a judgement call, but it leans *much* further >> toward acceptance than "once Blink API owners approve, the concrete is >> poured" does. >> >> ~TJ >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAO7W_CFxpEZk%2BsdK3b8pfOX%3DPo0bdXxNnHWYvB8j2TeiqEVDw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAAO7W_CFxpEZk%2BsdK3b8pfOX%3DPo0bdXxNnHWYvB8j2TeiqEVDw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2Mk4BGq%2BTkCt_af2YK9HbWQ_2O1gZZvjmQ6%3D2XVObG0%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
