Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: non-standard `shadowroot` attribute for declarative shadow DOM

Checking back in on this deprecation thread. The use counter for the deprecated shadowroot attribute has plateaued at about 0.045% of page loads. I have had the feature disabled for 50% of Canary, Dev, and Beta since July, and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Accordion pattern using name attribute on elements

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 6:30 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:04 PM David Baron wrote: > >> Summary >> >> This feature adds the ability to construct exclusive accordions using a >> sequence of HTML elements. It adds a name attribute to the >> element. When this attribute is u

[blink-dev] Re: [Call for feedback] Proposal to gradually skip unload events: already unreliable, top back/forward cache blocker, better alternatives available!

*Does the Permissions-Policy: unload API not support sourceless subframes?* (i.e. iframes without *src* attributes and with content set inline in *srcdoc*) My team uses sourceless iframes, and hooks to the *unload* event for cleaning up resou

[blink-dev] Re: [Call for feedback] Proposal to gradually skip unload events: already unreliable, top back/forward cache blocker, better alternatives available!

Thanks Kevin. Replies in-line. On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 09:30, Kevin D. wrote: > *Does the Permissions-Policy: unload API > not support sourceless > subframes?* (i.e. iframes without *src* attributes and with content set > inline in *srcdoc*) > >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web Bluetooth getDevices(), BluetoothDevice.watchAdvertisements(), and BluetoothAdvertisingEvent

BluetoothDevice.watchAdvertisements() is not planned to be shipped. The chromestatus entry has been updated accordingly. On Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 12:08:46 PM UTC-7 mk...@chromium.org wrote: > LGTM3. > > On Sunday, August 9, 2020 a

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Async Clipboard API: Read unsanitized HTML and write well-formed HTML format.

The code expects `text/html` at the first position of the array, but the explainer says "If text/html representation is present in the ClipboardItem and text/html is present in the unsanitized list", which suggests any position would be fine. Maybe make the explainer say what the code says or vi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate TLS SHA-1 server signatures

Hi Ivan, Yeah, we've had a couple reports come in from the bugtracker. Most seem to have been caused by an extremely outdated OpenSSL (several even still vulnerable to Heartbleed!) and were resolved by the servers updating their OpenSSL. I've put together a troubleshooting doc here with the server

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Invokers

Contact emails chrom...@keithcirkel.co.uk Explainer https://open-ui.org/components/invokers.explainer Specification https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9841 Summary Adding invoketarget and invokeaction attributes to and / elements would allow authors to assign behaviour to buttons in a m

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: 'priority' HTTP request header

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 3:18 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > Can you briefly describe what the header parts are good for, and how would > developers use them? > There are 2 parts to the header which is formatted as a structured-field dictionary (comma-separated entries with each entry being key=value.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Bounce Tracking Mitigations

Bounce tracking mitigations are now rolling out to 100% stable starting today (in cases where 3P cookies are blocked). On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:00 AM Ben Kelly wrote: > FYI, we are rolling out bounce tracking mitigations to stable 10% today. > (Again, this only impacts users who are blocking 3

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Async Clipboard API: Read unsanitized HTML and write well-formed HTML format.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 7:15 PM Anupam Snigdha wrote: > Any answer on the other question regarding what the expected outcome of a > call like below would be? > > Currently we're throwing a JS exception >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: 'priority' HTTP request header

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 8:27 AM Alex Russell wrote: > Why has this not been sent to the TAG? > There's no TAG requirement for an I2E, and this is defined as part of the IETF, so outside of the TAG's "jurisdiction". > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 1:40 PM Patrick Meenan wrote: > >> Contact emailspmee

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: 'priority' HTTP request header

Thanks for adding that support! On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:40 PM Patrick Meenan wrote: > Contact emailspmee...@google.com > > ExplainerNone > Can you briefly describe what the header parts are good for, and how would developers use them? > > > Specificationhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9