[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: IndexedDB getAllRecords() and direction option for getAll()/getAllKeys()

Per today's API OWNERS, there's some question about if and when the spec change might land. Evan, do you have insight into that process? Best, Alex On Thursday, July 24, 2025 at 8:40:07 PM UTC+1 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails stev...@microsoft.com, rah...@microsoft.com, > evanst...@mic

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Support restrictOwnAudio

LGTM1 On Tuesday, July 29, 2025 at 3:16:04 PM UTC+1 Olga Sharonova wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > *> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, > Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?* > > No > > My understanding is that this has to be "No" because getDisplayMed

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Script Blocking in Incognito

West wrote: > >> Ok, it sounds like you're asking for something conceptually similar to >> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/web-platform/tracking-prevention? >> >> I think we can pull that together. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion! >> &

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: ToggleEvent source attribute

t;> LGTM3, but I also believe a small explainer is a good idea. >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:15 PM Alex Russell >> wrote: >> >>> LGTM2 on the condition that some sort of minimal explainer that includes >>> at least example code outlining the problem and ho

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Script Blocking in Incognito

t. Does that more or less align with your > view, or should we be aiming for a different compatibility bar in the long > run? > > -mike > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:07 PM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> I remain concerned that this behaviour isn't going t

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: ToggleEvent source attribute

LGTM2 on the condition that some sort of minimal explainer that includes at least example code outlining the problem and how this change fixes it is produced. Best, Alex On Tuesday, July 22, 2025 at 1:27:47 AM UTC+1 dan...@microsoft.com wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Monday, July 21, 2025 at 1:04:01 P

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Digital Credential API

> >> Thanks Alex! >> Could you please clarify what you mean with "pivot this intent to a >> gapless I2S"? (sorry but I am a bit confused) >> I am requesting the extension to cover up to and including Chrome 140, >> and we are optimistic that we will be a

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Script Blocking in Incognito

such as ad >>>>> blockers. >>>>> The team is also adding monitoring to see if incognito detectability is >>>>> on >>>>> the rise due to these features. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 7:23 PM Gregg T

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: ServiceWorkerStaticRouterTimingInfo

Thanks for the helpful OT summary doc. LGTM1. On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 10:47:40 PM UTC-7 Keita Suzuki wrote: > Contact emailssuzukike...@chromium.org, yyanagis...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/service-worker-static-routing-api/blob/main/resource-timing-api.md > > Specifi

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: IP Protection in Incognito using published Masked Domain list

Mike Taylor was kind enough to answer all my questions regarding non-Google browsers in today's API OWNERS meeting. LGTM2. On Wednesday, July 16, 2025 at 8:28:24 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:18 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> Th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Digital Credential API

Thanks for all of this. Any reason not to pivot this intent to a gapless I2S? On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-7 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:44 AM Chromestatus < > ad...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: > >> Contact emails rby...@chromium.org, g...@chromium.o

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: IP Protection in Incognito using published Masked Domain list

l not be able to pick their proxy, but they will be able to turn > off the feature. > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:18 PM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> This is exciting work, and I'm inclined to LGTM. There are some reviews >> that need to be kicked off within the too

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: Clipboardchange event

LGTM1; are there engaged partners that you're expecting to get feedback from? And is there any chance you'll come back with an I2S before the close of the OT? Thanks, Alex On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 10:24:44 AM UTC-7 Rohan Raja wrote: > > > *Contact emails* > ror...@microsoft.com, ragou...@m

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Script Blocking in Incognito

Will this be enabled for all Chromium browsers by default? On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 8:54:57 AM UTC-7 riz...@google.com wrote: > Contact emails > > riz...@google.com, mk...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/script-blocking > > Specification > > https://gi

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: IP Protection in Incognito using published Masked Domain list

This is exciting work, and I'm inclined to LGTM. There are some reviews that need to be kicked off within the tool for us to be able to move forward; let us know if you need help. On the meat of the work, are you going to be launching this feature with any other Chromium browsers, either with G

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Secure Payment Confirmation: UX Refresh

LGTM1; my view is that each browser team is managing risk about browser-presented UI and that nothing about this forces anyone to display anything. Best, Alex On Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 11:24:51 AM UTC-7 Nina Satragno wrote: > El mié, 9 jul 2025 a la(s) 12:11 p.m., Stephen Mcgruer ( > smcg

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Support font-feature-settings descriptor in @font-face rule

LGTM2 On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 10:51:50 PM UTC-7 sejal...@microsoft.com wrote: > > > Thank you Philip for your approval, font-variation-settings CL is also > merged, I'll ship both of them together. > > > -- > *From:* Philip Jägenstedt > *Sent:* Saturday, July 5, 2

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Insert CJK inter-script spacing: the CSS `text-autospace` property

LGTM3 On Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 8:24:18 AM UTC-7 Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM2 > > We discussed this in the API owners meeting today (present: Chris, Yoav, > Vlad, Jeffrey, Daniel, Alex, me) and think it makes sense to ship matching > the initial value that Safari already shipped. At tha

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: ScrollIntoView container option

github issue for exactly this reason - > it enables developers to use scrollIntoView for these use cases without > creating a disruptive experience. > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:25 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> Is there an explainer or a motivating example

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS scroll-target-group property

LGTM2, contingent on a good resolution of Jeffery's concern. Best, Alex On Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 8:14:12 AM UTC-7 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Would it be possible to put this explanation and example in the > specification , > instead

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: View transition pseudos inherit animation-delay.

LGTM2. Is there good documentation (e.g. in MDN) about which properties are inherited and from where? And how do CSS custom properties inherit in this parallel tree? On Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 8:22:11 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:23 PM Chromestatus <

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: ScrollIntoView container option

Is there an explainer or a motivating example anywhere? Best, Alex On Thursday, June 19, 2025 at 9:24:22 AM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails fla...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification > https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-scrollintoviewoptions-container > > Summ

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Corner shaping (corner-shape, superellipse, squircle)

Excited to see this! Has the TAG weighed in on the proliferation of related but different shorthand syntaxes in this area? We have `superellipse()` here and `cubic-bezier()` in easing. Should we provide both in each system? If not, why not? Best, Alex On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, 5:27 AM Domenic Denic

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebXR Depth Sensing Performance Improvements

Thanks for answering all these questions, Alexander. LGTM1 On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 10:56:59 AM UTC-7 Alexander Cooper wrote: > Thanks Mike. I believe I've made all of the changes requested. > > > Can you update the chromestatus entry with this info (see the "Platform > Support Explanation" f

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation rules: target_hint field

ive evidence of the need from other partners? Best, Alex On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 5:57:25 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:33 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> The justification for this feature in the Explainer seems a bit thin. >> What&#x

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web app scope extensions

I'm recused from this one, but grateful and happy to see it moving forward. Godspeed! On Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 2:12:29 PM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails lu...@microsoft.com, luigo...@microsoft.com, > dmu...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/manifest-incubati

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation rules: target_hint field

The justification for this feature in the Explainer seems a bit thin. What's the core problem that requires us to make developers repeat themselves like this rather than, e.g., deriving the target information from attributes on elements? On Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 8:26:10 AM UTC-7 Chris Har

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: On-device Web Speech API

t;> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 8:50:12 PM UTC+2 ev...@google.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS 'stretch' sizing keyword

Per David's last update in the Platform Status tool, LGTM1 On Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 3:21:12 PM UTC-7 obr...@igalia.com wrote: > > I'm inclined to get things into the world > > I'm inclined to not hurry to get things into the world, specially since > you warned the CSSWG that you may block

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Support async attribute for SVG

Good question, Daniel. I'd also like to understand if we've got signals from developers on this. I can see a strong case for it, but we should be led by developer needs. The 3 users in the crbug are a good start, but have we tried to survey a larger population? Best, Alex On Wednesday, May 14

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Crash Reporting API: is_top_level & visibility_state

LGTM3 On Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 1:59:36 PM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 5/14/25 8:55 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 4:08 AM Dominic Farolino wrote: > >> Thanks for pointing this oversight out! It's been addressed in the spec, >> and the impl >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Update QuotaExceededError to a DOMException derived interface

Sorry, I misunderstood which way this change was being proposed. LGTM1 On Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 6:24:02 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 3:21 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> Thanks for flipping the bits, Ayu. >> >> Domenic: it seems li

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Escape "<" and ">" in attributes on serialization

LGTM3 with the caveat that we likely have risks to enterprise apps that wouldn't have been visible from the 10% Finch experiement, and so we should do this on-by-default in Beta for most of a cycle, and make sure that we have a kill-switch in place in case of potential enterprise breakage in St

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Pass 'Sec-Purpose: prefetch' header with

LGTM2 On Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 11:21:54 AM UTC-7 dan...@microsoft.com wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Monday, May 12, 2025 at 3:00:13 PM UTC-7 stev...@microsoft.com wrote: > >> Yes, thanks for the reminder. This is my first Intent to Ship so will >> note this for future ones! >> >> On Monday, May 12,

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Update QuotaExceededError to a DOMException derived interface

Thanks for flipping the bits, Ayu. Domenic: it seems like this is part of a longer-running set of changes we've had going in DOM-land regarding moving away from subclasses of Error types, and IIRC this is a motivating factor in the TAG's Design Principles guidance on error types

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Short-circuiting var(), attr()

LGTM3; +1 to Yoav's thanks re: the thorough analysis. On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 7:59:03 AM UTC-7 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > Thank you for the thorough analysis!! Let's break this vicious cycle! > (before it's too late) > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 4:38:43 PM UTC+2 Daniel Bratell wrote:

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: On-device Web Speech API

Thanks Evan and Jeff. Evan: if we can get to API symmetry, I think that will help considerably. Evan/Jeff: this seems like good advice from the TAG. When do we think we can get the bikeshed repain...er...develop updated names? Best, Alex On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 12:12:29 AM UTC-7 Jeffrey

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: On-device Web Speech API

Does "trivial" mean "possible within the scope of this Intent"? Or does that mean it will need to be picked up in the future? A full parity API is easier to approve. On Thursday, April 24, 2025 at 8:48:18 AM UTC-7 ev...@google.com wrote: > Hi Domenic, > > On-device Web Speech supports phrases l

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Viewport Segments Enumeration API

Thanks for all these updates. LGTM1. On Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:41:23 AM UTC-7 alexis...@intel.com wrote: > Hi, > > All WPT tests are now green. I fixed the issue. Edge will also get green > when the runner moves to a newer version like Chrome. > > Thanks. > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 12

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Deprecate GPUAdapter isFallbackAdapter attribute

LGTM3 On Monday, May 5, 2025 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 5/2/25 5:33 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:16 AM François Beaufort > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:09 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >> yoavwe...@chromium.org> w

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Web serial over Bluetooth on Android

LGTM1; exciting to see this getting filled in! On Friday, April 25, 2025 at 9:27:41 AM UTC-7 Garfield Tan wrote: > > Do we plan to add this to WebView at a later date? The usual pattern > here would be to introduce an Android API that delegates calls to the > Android app developer. > > There is

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: System accent color for accent-color property.

Hey Priya, Can we make sure to request explicit signals from WebKit? Thanks. LGTM1 modulo that nit. Best, Alex On Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 10:49:26 AM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails priya...@microsoft.com > > Explainer None > > Specification https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Language Detector API

Hey Deepti, Are you able to summarize developer feedback from the OT? Best, Alex On Friday, April 25, 2025 at 1:58:12 PM UTC-7 Deepti Bogadi wrote: > Contact emails > > dome...@chromium.org, fer...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org, > a...@chromium.org, memm...@chromium.org, christin...@

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Allow to reference an external document's root element by omitting the fragment.

LGTM1 On Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 9:47:50 AM UTC-7 dma...@microsoft.com wrote: > *Contact emails* > > dman...@microsoft.com > > *Explainer* > > > https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/SVG/allow-use-to-reference-entire-files.md > > *Specification* > > https://svgwg.org/sv

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Pushsubscriptionchange event upon resubscription

LGTM1. Are you able to clarify which platforms this isn't shipping on? Presumably iOS? On Thursday, April 17, 2025 at 1:44:29 AM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails antoniosart...@chromium.org > > Explainer None > > Specification > https://w3c.github.io/push-api/#the-pushsubscriptionch

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Document-Isolation-Policy

LGTM1. We're excited to see this move forward. On Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 6:22:26 AM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails cl...@google.com > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/document-isolation-policy/blob/main/README.md > > Specification https://wicg.github.io/document-isolatio

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Summarizer API

hey Ayu, Thanks for including the changes since the original intent. Great to see things evolve while in OT. Has there been feedback on this so far? Anything y'all can share? Best, Alex On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-7 Ayu Ishii wrote: > Contact emails > > dome...@chromium.org

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Translator API

thanks for this. LGTM On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-7 Kenji Baheux wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 10:13 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> Hey Alex, I hope these help! >> >> On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 3:21:34 AM UTC+9 Alex Russe

Re: [EXTERNAL] [blink-dev] Re: Intent to implement and ship: Support offset-path: shape()

LGTM3 On Monday, April 14, 2025 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-7 dan...@microsoft.com wrote: > For the record, the TAG did review this (Resolution: satisfied): > https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1033. LGTM2. > > > > -- Dan > > > > *From:* Domenic Denicola > *Sent:* Sunday, April 13, 202

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS 'stretch' sizing keyword

I don't see progress in the linked bug from the CSS WG F2F in NY. Should we keep holding this? I'm inclined to get things into the world if they've been well-designed and there is developer interest. Best, Alex On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 5:45:04 AM UTC-7 obr...@igalia.com wrote: > I think i

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Controlled Frame API (available only to IWAs)

Any updates here? On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:34:04 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 8:39:21 AM UTC+9 Robbie McElrath wrote: > > Contact emails > > rmcelr...@chromium.org, ze...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > https://github.com/WICG/controlled-frame/blob/main/R

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Translator API

Thanks for filing an extension request. Some questions that weren't clear from the above: - Is this extension going to involve breaking changes? I saw the TAG's feedback from last year had API shape suggestions, so curious to know if it's evolving further in this extension - Has th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: GPUTextureView for externalTexture binding

LGTM3, contingent on an official standards position disposition from Mozilla (but not blocking on what it is). On Monday, April 14, 2025 at 7:13:00 AM UTC-7 Corentin Wallez wrote: > We don't have minutes for these out-of-band meetings, but we want a stable > reference that we can point at as we

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :has-slotted pseudo selector

How's it going? Any updates? On Monday, March 17, 2025 at 11:39:47 AM UTC-7 Keith Cirkel wrote: > None yet, I’ve got to rework some of the internals but got a little busy. > I’ll hopefully have some updates in the coming weeks! > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, at 6:07 PM, Alex Russe

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: SharedWorker script inherit controller for blob script URL

Assuming these proposed metrics land in time to ship, LGTM1 On Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 8:12:47 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > These proposed metrics sound reasonable to us, so long as they capture all > cases where the behavior is changing. But we defer to you and your team as > the experts

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS if() function

2025 at 4:00 PM Alan Stearns wrote: >> >>> Alex, >>> >>> I trimmed down the quote reply below to point out that Emilio is asking >>> for more web developer feedback. That will take time to get as authors >>> experiment with the prototype.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: [WebRTC getStats] Align implementations on when RTP stats should be created

Discussed at today's API OWNERs. LGTM1 on the condition that we make sure there's a flag for rollout so that this can be kill-switched if the compat issues turn out to be problematic for other sites. Best, Alex On Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:29:50 AM UTC-7 Henrik Boström wrote: > We can disc

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename `string` attr() type to `raw-string`

Best, Alex On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 12:53:13 PM UTC-7 jacka...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:21 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > > Why would we change this? We backed the original intent with the usual > conditions: once the concrete is poured, it's

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS reading-flow, reading-order properties

LGTM2 On Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 6:57:22 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM1 > > /Daniel > On 2025-04-01 00:11, Di Zhang wrote: > > Contact emails > > dizha...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > None > > Specification > > https://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-4 > > Summary > > The reading-flow

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation rules: tag field

LGTM2, with some disappointment on two fronts: - why do we keep doing this these JSON-ish declarative forms without adding any sort of DOM? It's maddening. - we're backing into many things that effectively map to headers. Why not just add a "headers" sub-field to the structure and allow a full

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebGPU: copyBufferToBuffer overload

LGTM1, but would be good to see the other review sections started. On Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 1:15:47 AM UTC-7 fbea...@google.com wrote: > Contact emails > > fbeauf...@google.com > > Explainer > > To simplify the copy of entire buffers, a new overload has been added to > the GPUCommandEncode

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CapturedSurfaceResolution

LGTM2 On Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7 Guido Urdaneta wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 4:33 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> >> >> Interoperability risk is relatively low. The main risk is that other >> browsers do not implement the feature. However, since the feature is a

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Auto-generated view transition names

It's unconvincing re: deprecation risk that Apple has decided in the short run that they don't want to unship to deliver a better feature (without the benefits of developer-oriented quality protections that our process provides). We should always be trying to answer the question "*does this sol

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Link rel=payment to support push payments

LGTM3 On Wednesday, March 26, 2025 at 8:18:37 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:17 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < > yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> >> On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4 junh...@google.com >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Jeffrey f

[blink-dev] Re: I2P&S: Strict Same Origin Policy for Storage Access API

March 19, 2025 at 11:23:28 AM UTC-4 Vladimir Levin wrote: >> >>> Is it a correct reading that that it's roughly 9% of 0.08% of pageloads >>> that will be affected? That still seems large. Can you speak to the nature >>> of the breakage? Specifically, do t

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Captured Surface Control

Thanks for all the context, Elad. Evidence from OT is persuasive here. LGTM1. On Monday, March 24, 2025 at 2:05:50 AM UTC-7 elad...@google.com wrote: > The remaining open issues are: > >1. > >Whether the API shape should already support gestures other than >wheel, or whether su

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Auto-generated view transition names

It seems like Jake's concern is well founded. Was this discussed at CSS WG? Do we understand why this problematic design is going forward in other engines? Best, Alex On Monday, March 24, 2025 at 6:30:42 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > On 3/24/25 4:22 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > Tha

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Update HTTP request headers, body, and referrer policy on CORS redirect

LGTM1 On Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 2:09:55 PM UTC-7 Viktoria Zlatinova wrote: > The change is in 135, sorry for the delay. Happy to make any changes. > > Thanks, > Viktoria > -- > *From:* Vladimir Levin > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 18, 2025 7:57 PM > *To:* blink-dev >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS if() function

Will second the thanks, Emilio, but will reiterate that Blink's test here isn't WG consensus, but rather web developer feedback. If there's concern among developers that this proposal isn't on the right trajectory, would be good to hear that now. Best, Alex On Friday, February 28, 2025 at 1:1

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: Device Bound Session Credentials

Given that the design of this feature doesn't require a specific backend implementation, going to approve it. LGTM On Thursday, March 13, 2025 at 3:50:18 PM UTC-7 Daniel Rubery wrote: > Hello, > > Device Bound Session Credentials can only interface between the site and > the primitives given b

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

LGTM1 on the condition that this is launched with a fractional rollout and good histograms to provide a way to detect breakage as we go and kill-switch it if we detect some. Have y'all discussed with enterprise customers? Best, Alex On Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 2:20:33 PM UTC-7 Martin Thom

[blink-dev] Re: I2P&S: Strict Same Origin Policy for Storage Access API

Hey Chris, Do you have a sense for what fraction of Storage Access API use (yes, I know it's low) will be impacted by this change? Is there a way to tell? Best, Alex On Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-7 Chris Fredrickson wrote: > Contact emails > > cfred...@chromium.org > > Explai

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: :has-slotted pseudo selector

Any updates? On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 8:04:33 AM UTC-8 Keith Cirkel wrote: > Not yet, I'll land a few patches this week that will tidy up the points > Rune raised. > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025, at 4:02 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > Hi Keith, is this intent ready for re-review? > > On Tue,

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Call stacks in crash reports from unresponsive web pages

I'm recused on this one, but would like to see it move forward quickly. Great work. On Friday, March 14, 2025 at 1:32:38 PM UTC-7 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails issackj...@microsoft.com, seth.bren...@microsoft.com, > iclell...@google.com > > Explainer > https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecate special font size rules for H1 within some elements

Hey Mason, This looks good, but I'm not sure I understand the plan. Is it to deprecate (w/ console warnings) for some period of time? Are you going to propose a reverse-OT? Or removal once usage falls below some threshold? Best, Alex On Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 5:20:03 PM UTC-8 Mason Freed

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename `string` attr() type to `raw-string`

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. Best, Alex On Monday, March 17, 2025 at 8:28:20 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote: > Thank you for looking into that. Do you have any sense of the r

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Type-agnostic var() fallback

Hey Anders, I deeply appreciate the work you did to investigate the incompatibilities you found. Dan noted that we hadn't filed for signals with the other engines directly. Can you do that? LGTM1 contingent on that. Best, Alex On Tuesday, March 11, 2025 at 3:20:38 AM UTC-7 Anders Hartvoll

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: H265 (HEVC) codec support in WebRTC

al impact on your device's overall battery life, >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> to mention improving the performance, unblocking higher resolutions and >>>>>>> more CPU budget for features as well as unblocking HW acceleration in >&

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: Speculation rules: target_hint field

LGTM1 I continue to be concerned that we are proliferating these declarative forms without any object model. I'd like to see an OM for speculation rules, import maps, and other similar designs. Has this come up in your discussions with the TAG? Best, Alex On Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 11:42:

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Language support for CanvasTextDrawingStyles

LGTM2 On Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 12:02:05 PM UTC-4 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 6:38 AM Stephen Chenney > wrote: > >> Thanks Vlad. Answers inline. >> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:34 PM Vladimir Levin >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 11:17

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Partitioning cross-site top-level navigations in the HTTP cache

LGTM3 On Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 6:21:35 AM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: > FYI, it looks like WebKit is trending supportive on this change: > https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/462#issuecomment-2693662676 > > On 3/2/25 9:32 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > LGTM2. > > I'm sadd

Re: [EXTERNAL] [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS anchor positioning remembered scroll offset

LGTM1 On Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 11:47:20 PM UTC-8 Morten Stenshorne wrote: > Daniel Clark writes: > > > Can you remind me what the current behavior is without the remembered > > scroll offset? I am wondering if there’s any scenario where changing > > this could break existing anchor pos usa

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: H265 (HEVC) codec support in WebRTC

Hey Henrik, I'd like to understand the case for the API OWNERS approving more support for patent encumbered codecs when we have AV1. Apple continues to use its hardware to push closed solutions in this space, and I understand the instinct, but I'd like to see quantified benefits. Best, Alex

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: H26x Codec support updates for MediaRecorder

For transparency, I'm disinclined to make the proprietary vs. open codecs situation worse just because Apple is harming the ecosystem in an unaccountable way. It would be helpful in making a decision about this if we understood the full matrix of what is supported where, and under what conditio

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: highlightsFromPoint API

Excited to see a solution to this, but have some concerns: - The Explainer includes IDL (an anti-pattern) but doesn't outline the problem developers have, or how this design will solve them, with example code - I understand that this a close analogue with `document.elementsFromP

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning :visited links history

I'm also super excited about this. Has been a long time coming. Thank you for making it happen, Kyra! On compat, can we allay the concerns here with a fractional rollout (e.g., ~10% for a couple of releases) and a checkin at some point(s) before we go to 100%? Best, Alex On Wednesday, Februa

Re: [blink-dev] Intent To Ship: Allow SameSite=None Cookies in First-Party Sandboxed Contexts

LGTM1; thanks for making sure to follow up on the spec PRs. On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 6:44:27 AM UTC-8 joha...@google.com wrote: > > The spec PR for this is still marked as a draft, and as such hasn't > received significant editor review. Can you say more about what's blocking > it from

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

Sorry for missing the link to the TAG review. LGTM2, but would love an update on scroll drag in some other channel. Best, Alex On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 8:10:35 AM UTC-8 Alex Russell wrote: > Is there a link to the pending TAG review? > > Also, it's great to see inertne

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

Is there a link to the pending TAG review? Also, it's great to see inertness being added, but is there also a solution to click-grab dragging? This is notably missing from native carousel support on the web and I would have expected it to be proposed along with this; e.g. an extension that mirr

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: JavaScript Promise Integration

Hey Francis, This feature is exciting, and I'm glad to see it moving forward. That said, this extension would push the OT past a year, which is a bit of a concern. Have you considered, perhaps, pushing forward with a gapless intent-to-ship? If you're happy with the developer feedback to date, a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to ship: Customizable select

I'm an enthusiastic LGTM1 on this; thank you so much for pushing this forward. As part of my vote here, I want to explicitly set the marker that when this ships, incompatible changes will be looked at with extreme skepticism. This is our usual *modus operandi* when we approve an I2S, but given

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebGPU Subgroups experimentation

Hey Alan, Just for the avoidance of future friction, we try to use the explicit signals systems from Apple and Mozilla because they've asked us not to use their rep's statements in WGs as assent. Is it possible for you to file those? Best, Alex On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 10:48:36 AM UTC-8

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: On-device Web Speech API

+1 to Dan's feedback; this needs an async API, likely with a streams design. On Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 7:33:12 AM UTC-8 Rick Byers wrote: > This is great to see! IMHO there are a bunch of great use-cases for > on-device speech recognition which are likely not suitable for server-based >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience (B&A) - Selectable Reporting IDs

LGTM3 On Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 8:25:01 AM UTC-8 Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:44 AM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> LGTM1 - feature parity makes sense between Chrome & Chrome/B&A. >> On 12/16/24 9:07 AM, Paul Jensen wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document-Policy: expect-no-linked-resources

nt is > the only viable method. The browser cannot pre-determine that piece of > information (whether there's a resource coming), on its own — thus a hint > works best here. > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:21 AM Alex Russell > wrote: > >> The consent manager case seems particularly brittle, as any future >> improvements to reduce parser blockage by

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document-Policy: expect-no-linked-resources

The consent manager case seems particularly brittle, as any future improvements to reduce parser blockage by

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSP hash reporting for scripts

LGTM3 On Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 9:26 AM Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 5:02 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > >> Thanks for working on this - LGTM1 >> On 12/9/24 8:05 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: >> >> Contact emails yoavwe...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer https://github.com/w3c

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Storage Access Headers

Hey Sam, Thanks for the updates. We discussed this at this morning's API OWNERS meeting, and given that there's some renaming risk, it sounds like there's support to extend you past the 1 extra milestone you're asking for under the caveat that breaking changes (e.g., a renaming) be implemented

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Protected Audience Subresource bundle directFromSellerSignals

LGTM1 w/ finch control for rollout. On Wednesday, December 4, 2024 at 6:17:10 AM UTC-8 Daniel Bratell wrote: > Privacy and Security gates are also missing. > > I would assume that removing this could only have a positive effect but > they should still be given a heads-up in the chromestatus tool

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Freezing on Energy Saver

Presumably we would want to treat Web Transport the same way as Web Sockets here, whatever we decide? On Sunday, December 8, 2024 at 12:20:50 PM UTC-8 philipp...@googlemail.com wrote: > what about WebSockets? Wondering about video conferencing websites that > use Websockets as signaling transp

  1   2   3   4   >