Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: WebAssembly JS String Builtins

LGTM to experiment until M127, inclusive. After some discussions amongst the API owners, I think there's no real mismatch. The Blink process does have more requirements for OT renewals than the WASM process does for stage 3 proposals, but that not necessarily a contradiction. Therefore I would

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

LGTM to experiment M127-M132 inclusive. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:17 AM Domenic Denicola wrote: > Can you work on filing for TAG review, and asking other browsers for > signals? > I agree it's a good idea to file all these at this point, but they are not a blocker for an initial OT request. (th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: WebAssembly JS String Builtins

Just to clarify: the current OT already runs until M127 inclusive, we are asking for an extension to M130. Also, there was significant progress on the spec since the last extension. The proposal has moved from phase 2 to phase 3 since then including fulfilling all the requirements for that transit

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: WebAssembly JS String Builtins

LGTM to extend experimentation until M130 inclusive On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:54 PM Emanuel Ziegler wrote: > Just to clarify: the current OT already runs until M127 inclusive, we are > asking for an extension to M130. > Ok, that wasn't clear from your intent, but I should have asked for clarifi

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove: Stop sending blur events on element removal

Update on this: we're still interested in the next step but it's in the back burner until mutation event deprecation is complete, to avoid related noise. On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 12:52:23 PM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Aaron Leventhal > wrote: > >> A goo

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:10 PM 'Ajay Rahatekar' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emailsmas...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specification > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10209#issuecomment-2221005001 > > Summary > > The CSSWG resolved to rename the `inset

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

Ok. I'm testing now and with Storage Partitioning Disabled + 3PCD a cross-origin iframe is blocked from accessing local storage, session storage, and DOMCache. I think this will cause unexpected behavior for sites using this Enterprise Policy next year when 3PCD takes effect. It'd be great if there

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > From the other emails, there is a 0.02% usage of this property right now, > so it may be worthwhile to document the planned timeline for the > rename process. > > This lists M131 as the shipping milestone, but I assume we want to do this > b

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin > wrote: > >> From the other emails, there is a 0.02% usage of this property right now, >> so it may be worthwhile to document the planned timeline for the >> rename process. >> >> This lists

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

LGTM2 On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:12 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin >> wrote: >> >>> From the other emails, there is a 0.02% usage of this property right >>> now, so it may be worthwhile

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

Just to clarify: this intent is to add `position-area` which is a drop in replacement/alias for `inset-area`. The latter is being deprecated via another intent. Is this correct? Thanks, Vlad On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:23 PM Mason Freed wrote: > {NOTE: this is a replacement of this chromestatus >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:17 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > Just to clarify: this intent is to add `position-area` which is a drop in > replacement/alias for `inset-area`. The latter is being deprecated via > another intent. Is this correct? > That's exactly right, yes. The intent to deprecate the o

RE: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Support currentcolor in Relative Color Syntax

Sorry for the slow reply, was out of office for a week. I have no objection to treating this feature as an Intent instead. I’ve deprecated this chromestatus entry and re-filed as “Existing feature implementation.” Thanks Kevin From: Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) mailto:yoavwe...@chromium.org>> Sent:

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Support currentcolor in Relative Color Syntax

Contact emails kbabb...@microsoft.com Explainer None Specification https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-5/#resolving-rcs Design docs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1568wVjrIRbrU9_O37gPu10cj0CDWRiAc6ZMk9t0JpXs/edit Summary Allow relative colors in CSS (using th

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

LGTM3 On 7/11/24 12:13 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:12 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM Mason Freed wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: From the other emails, there is

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

That's not on our roadmap for now as hasStorageAccess/hasUnpartitionedCookieAccess are there to help understand the need to call requestStorageAccess to access cookies (they fit into a larger use case pattern cross-browser). One way to get access to unpartitioned storage would be by using the new

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

I'll work on filing for the TAG review and asking other browsers for signals. Thanks! On Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 4:09:29 AM UTC-7 yoav...@chromium.org wrote: > LGTM to experiment M127-M132 inclusive. > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:17 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> Can you work on filing f

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Relaunch: CHIPS on WebView

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 10:20, Vladimir Levin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 16:28 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hey Vlad, >> >> Thanks for your response. I have completed the analysis and have some >> results to report. I also have created the Chromestatu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Deprecation of CSS Anchor Positioning property `inset-area`

Thank you all! On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:51 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > So the idea is to add `position-area` in M129, and deprecate (but not yet >>> remove) `inset-area` also in M129. And then ideally remove `inset-area` in >>> M131. Two milestones seems like enough time for developers to migrate,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Capture all screens

CSP and Trusted Types give you protections against XSS but only the bundling provided by IWAs provides the protection against server compromise that Chrome Security is asking for for this API. Shipping this API in its final form has been blocked on IWAs being ready to launch (which is imminent). R

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

hasStorageAccess/hasUnpartitionedCookieAccess doesn’t tell us if storage partitioning is disabled. It just tells you if there is unpartitioned cookie access. That will always return false post-3PCD. It will also return true pre-3PCD with storage partitioning disabled. We also can't call requestSto

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

LGTM1 to add `position-area`, since it is an alias for `inset-area` that is shipped and is being deprecated. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM Mason Freed wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:17 AM Vladimir Levin > wrote: > >> Just to clarify: this intent is to add `position-area` which is a dro

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

LGTM2 On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:06 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: > LGTM1 to add `position-area`, since it is an alias for `inset-area` that > is shipped and is being deprecated. > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM Mason Freed wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:17 AM Vladimir Levin >> wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

LGTM3 On 7/11/24 2:18 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: LGTM2 On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:06 AM Vladimir Levin wrote: LGTM1 to add `position-area`, since it is an alias for `inset-area` that is shipped and is being deprecated. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM Mason Freed wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Rename inset-area to position-area

Thank you all. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:48 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM3 > On 7/11/24 2:18 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:06 AM Vladimir Levin > wrote: > >> LGTM1 to add `position-area`, since it is an alias for `inset-area` that >> is shipped and is being

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature: Changes to source-destination-limit logic

Contact emails akashna...@google.com, lin...@chromium.org, johni...@chromium.org Explainer Attribution Reporting with event-level reports Attribution Reporting API with Aggregatable Reports

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting Feature: Flexible contributions filtering

Contact emails akashna...@google.com, lin...@chromium.org, johni...@chromium.org Explainer Attribution Reporting with event-level reports Attribution Reporting API with Aggregatable Reports