Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS find-in-page highlight pseudos

There's quite a bit of discussion going on in the TAG and I'm (still) waiting on feedback from the client who requested this as to their specific use case. My goal is to improve our understanding of the motivation because right now it's unclear how to balance the benefits vs the risks of the featur

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM—Support showing third-party iframe origins in the UI

Can you clarify what the web-exposed parts of this feature would be? Do developers have control over which iframe would be presented in the UI (either the RP developers or the IDP ones)? On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 6:23 PM Chromestatus < ad...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: > *Contact emails* > cb

[blink-dev] Re: Ready for Trial: JPEG XL decoding support (image/jxl) in blink

** Correction to last message Could it possibly be ready for trial in the future though, Or would that be under a different implementation like the rust-based ones? On Tuesday 30 March 2021 at 20:24:47 UTC+1 Moritz Firsching wrote: > This was sent in error, we meant to send an "Intent to Prototy

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Mobile and desktop parity for select element rendering modes

What's the status of the spec PR? On 9/4/25 9:54 p.m., TAMURA, Kent wrote: LGTM1.  The consistent behavior is reasonable, and the compatibility risk looks very small. On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 2:42 AM Joey Arhar wrote: Contact emails jar...@chromium.org Explaine

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Custom property enumeration in getComputedStyle()

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 05:36:24PM +0200, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > Have you reached out to Gecko/WebKit compat teams? > They may have insights on the magnitude here. I talked to people from both Gecko and WebKit over the weekend, and neither had heard of this being an issue for them. I also

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

LGTM On 9/11/25 12:52 p.m., 'Queenie Zhang' via blink-dev wrote: Contact emails * queeniezh...@google.com, yaejee...@google.com * Explainer * https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/proofreader-api/blob/main/README.md

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Mobile and desktop parity for select element rendering modes

LGTM2 conditional on the the spec landing and known accessibility issues taken care of. /Daniel On 2025-09-17 00:57, Joey Arhar wrote: I did some testing with TalkBack on android, and I am fixing two issues to make it better: - https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6937127

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Respect overscroll-behavior on non-scrollable scroll containers

LGTM3 On 9/17/25 11:36 a.m., Daniel Bratell wrote: LGTM2 for the plan Philip outlined below. /Daniel On 2025-09-17 17:28, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: We discussed this at the API owners meeting today. (Present: Daniel, Yoav, Alex, Chris, Mike, Dan, Vlad, me.) LGTM1 Based on the use counter (

Re: [EXTERNAL] [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Sticky user activation across same-origin navigations

Forked the thread, and moved most people to bcc to avoid noise. Hi Jonathan (and Domenic): I already spotted executor.sub.html because that is the only *test resource* file to use test_driver.Actions(). Unfortunately, the main test file here ( speculation-rules/prefetch/out-of-document-rule-set.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Interoperable pointerrawupdate events exposed only in secure contexts

Thanks everyone, we are now landing this to M142. FYI, I wanted to call out the two part shipping plan for this (in case the "Non-finch justification" in the original post was not obvious): - The IDL change for the global event listeners cannot be flag-guarded, so we will ship this part w/o a flag

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Respect overscroll-behavior on non-scrollable scroll containers

LGTM2 for the plan Philip outlined below. /Daniel On 2025-09-17 17:28, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: We discussed this at the API owners meeting today. (Present: Daniel, Yoav, Alex, Chris, Mike, Dan, Vlad, me.) LGTM1 Based on the use counter (8%) and the number of sites checked (10) we don't hav

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Respect overscroll-behavior on non-scrollable scroll containers

We discussed this at the API owners meeting today. (Present: Daniel, Yoav, Alex, Chris, Mike, Dan, Vlad, me.) LGTM1 Based on the use counter (8%) and the number of sites checked (10) we don't have high confidence that this won't break something. However, we also don't have a concrete way to furth

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: :target-before and :target-after pseudo-classes

LGTM3 On Monday, September 15, 2025 at 7:57:44 PM UTC+2 Alex Russell wrote: > LGTM2. > > Jason, Dan and I were seeing an error in approving this intent related to > Web Feature ID. Are you able to check this entry and help us understand why > the error showed up? > > Best, > > Alex > > On Monda

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Respect overscroll-behavior on non-scrollable scroll containers

Thanks. I'm pinging people. Hopefully folks can weigh in here quickly. On Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 7:11:54 AM UTC-7 Robert Flack wrote: > I completely agree, the point here isn't to follow the spec. The reason I > think we should follow the spec in this case is that it is more ergonomic >