Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: ReadableStreamBYOBReader Min Option

LGTM3 If you can improve the documentation, that would be appreciated but it's not blocking anything. /Daniel On 2025-06-18 17:10, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 6/12/25 9:54 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: LGTM1 On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 1:27:32 AM UTC+9 Sneha Agarwal wrote: Contact ema

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: ReadableStreamBYOBReader Min Option

LGTM2 On 6/12/25 9:54 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: LGTM1 On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 1:27:32 AM UTC+9 Sneha Agarwal wrote: Contact emails snehagar...@microsoft.com, stev...@microsoft.com Explainer None Note that the feature is somewhat documented at https://developer.mozilla

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Randomizing TCP Port Allocation on Windows

Contact emails aric...@chromium.org, awil...@chromium.org, miketa...@chromium.org Explainer None Specification None Summary This launch enables TCP port randomization on versions of Windows (2020 H1 or later) where we do not expect to see issues with re-use of prior ports occurring too fast (c

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Crash Reporting API: Specify crash-reporting to receive only crash reports

LGTM2 On 6/18/25 10:58 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 6:25:02 AM UTC+2 Chromestatus wrote: Contact emails zhoupeng.1...@bytedance.com Explainer https://github.com/w3c/reporting/issues/263

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Re-Sizing TCP Connection Pool

Contact emails aric...@chromium.org, awil...@chromium.org, a...@google.com, miketa...@chromium.org Explainer None Specification Not yet Summary This experiment evaluates the impact of changing the per-profile TCP socket pool size from 256 (the current default

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Crash Reporting API: Specify crash-reporting to receive only crash reports

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2025-06-18 17:16, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM2 On 6/18/25 10:58 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 6:25:02 AM UTC+2 Chromestatus wrote: Contact emails zhoupeng.1...@bytedance.com Explainer https://github.com/

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Allow more characters in javascript DOM APIs

Thanks for the LGTMs! > Also, my judgement is that doing a normal rollout (with a Finch killswitch) is probably better than a Finch rollout, just for developer predictability. I think the compatibility risks of throwing less are basically nonexistent. But I don't feel strongly. Thanks, I'll just

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Crash Reporting API: Specify crash-reporting to receive only crash reports

LGTM1 On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 6:25:02 AM UTC+2 Chromestatus wrote: > Contact emails zhoupeng.1...@bytedance.com > > Explainer https://github.com/w3c/reporting/issues/263 > https://github.com/WICG/crash-reporting/issues/24 > https://github.com/WICG/crash-reporting/pull/30 > > Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Allow more characters in javascript DOM APIs

LGTM3 On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 7:15:28 PM UTC+2 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2025-06-13 03:42, TAMURA, Kent wrote: > > LGTM1. > The risk by shipping this feature would be very small. > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:39 AM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I'll recuse myself f

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

On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 1:14:29 PM UTC+2 Daniil Sakhapov wrote: Contact emailssakha...@chromium.org ExplainerCurrently to create carousel or table of contents patterns authors can use ::scroll-marker pseudo elements to create navigation elements. As they are pseudo elements they have a nu

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Re-Sizing TCP Connection Pool

LGTM to run an experiment in 139 /Daniel On 2025-06-18 17:18, Ari Chivukula wrote: Contact emails aric...@chromium.org , awil...@chromium.org , a...@google.com , miketa...@chromium.org

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Secure Payment Confirmation: Browser Bound Keys

Note the approach I took in WebUSB hasn't proven popular. I wouldn't replicate it. WebAuthn defines WebDriver commands and that's the approach we've been trying to take other APIs in as well such as Web Bluetooth and Web Smart Card. Reilly Grant | Software Engineer | reil...@chromium.org | Google C

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: getSelectionBoundingClientRect() for and elements

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:47 PM 'Andres Regalado Rosas' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emails > t-andre...@microsoft.com, ansol...@microsoft.com, leo...@microsoft.com, > mjack...@microsoft.com > > Explainer > > https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/G

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS caret-animation property

I would like to re-start this review. The spec PR is still waiting due a third party dependency. I'm in contact with that party to move it along. Mozilla's position is addressed apart from the concerns about accessibility, and a request to clarify some caret-color behavior which is unrelated to

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Customized built-in elements via elementInternals.type

Contact emails ansol...@microsoft.com, shih...@microsoft.com Explainer https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/ElementInternalsType/explainer.md Specification None Design docs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m

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

LGTM to experiment. I applaud the efforts to specify here what has previously been a UA heuristic. Although my first impression was that a spec was not too important, because the UA could always pretend there was a network error, closer review of the draft reveals that this is not the case: the

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

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 6:11 PM Mike West wrote: > Hey Yoav, thanks for your questions! > > On Monday, June 16, 2025 at 5:11:02 PM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 4:24 PM 'Zainab Rizvi' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > > Contact emailsriz...@google.com, mk...

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Randomizing TCP Port Allocation on Windows

I believe this should be completely unobservable to web authors, right? (Apart from maybe fewer or more network errors.) If so, I don't think this needs any LGTMs, as it fits well under the Web-developer-facing change to existing behavior