Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

Awesome! LGTM1. On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:35 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks for clarifying! Updated the Chrome Status' "Finch Feature Name" > field to kWritingSuggestions and removed the "Non-finch justification" > field. > > On Wednesday, March 13,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

Thanks for clarifying! Updated the Chrome Status' "Finch Feature Name" field to kWritingSuggestions and removed the "Non-finch justification" field. On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9:20:57 PM UTC-7 Domenic Denicola wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev < >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:54 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > We do have a runtime feature flag 'WritingSuggestions >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

We do have a runtime feature flag 'WritingSuggestions '. We didn't think a Finch Trial was necessary, as the bulk of the changes were just adding

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

On Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 2:08:28 AM UTC+9 Stephanie Zhang wrote: *Contact emails* *sa...@microsoft.com* , *dan...@microsoft.com* , *stephanie.zh...@microsoft.com* *Explainer* *https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/WritingSuggestions/explainer.md*

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document picture-in-picture: add option to hide back-to-tab button

I found an issue with the API design here that might result in a backward-incompatible change: https://github.com/WICG/document-picture-in-picture/issues/115 With my spec mentor hat on, sorry for not catching it sooner! On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 2:12 AM 'Tommy Steimel' via blink-dev <

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Sec-CH-UA-Form-Factor client hint

Thanks all -- the pluralization has now landed both in the draft-spec repo and in the Chromium source, and will be in place for M124. Especially thanks to Domenic - that was a good observation, and consistency in the web platform is definitely worth a little trouble to rename things. Dustin On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Adding Cross-site Ancestor Chain Bit to CHIPS Partition Key

The flag is a base::features flag named kAncestorChainBitEnabledInPartitionedCookies. Updated the review gates on chromestatus.com On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:25 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > Also, can you flip on the relevant review gates in chromestatus.com? > >

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document picture-in-picture: add option to hide back-to-tab button

Contact emailsstei...@chromium.org, liber...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://github.com/WICG/document-picture-in-picture/pull/114 Summary This adds a new parameter ("allowReturnToOpener") to the document picture-in-picture API that, when set to false, hints to the user agent

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: 'writingsuggestions' attribute

Contact emails sa...@microsoft.com, dan...@microsoft.com, stephanie.zh...@microsoft.com Explainer https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/WritingSuggestions/explainer.md

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

LGTM2 On 3/13/24 12:40 PM, Corentin Wallez wrote: Just to clarify, the ServiceWorker cannot do anything more than what the main thread can do for DoS. Or I guess the only additional capability is that it can trigger it up to 30 seconds after the user left the page. The reason why we can't

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

Just to clarify, the ServiceWorker cannot do anything more than what the main thread can do for DoS. Or I guess the only additional capability is that it can trigger it up to 30 seconds after the user left the page. The reason why we can't prevent DoS in all cases is that most GPUs don't have

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

One more question, is requestAnimationFrame affected at all or will that still work just as before? /Daniel On 2024-03-13 17:32, Daniel Bratell wrote: This intent has ended up in a strange state in the chromestatus tool, missing various flags I would have expected. Is that because the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant cross-origin frames

This intent has ended up in a strange state in the chromestatus tool, missing various flags I would have expected. Is that because the intent predates some of the chromestatus updates or because it started as an origin trial? If so, maybe the simplest is to refile it, or can it be made to be a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: Downsampled forDebugOnly & Increase number of component ads

LGTM2 On 3/13/24 11:45 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM1 On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 4:21:36 PM UTC-4 Paul Jensen wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:07 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:00 PM Paul Jensen wrote: On Wed, Feb

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private Aggregation debug mode for auctionReportBuyers reporting

LGTM3 I agree with Alex that we have a bad track record of "temporary" APIs on the web, but I'm comfortable with this given the particulars. A feature which is only a dictionary member is detectable (through a getter) but you have to do extra work and I don't recall ever seeing a problem from

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Protected Audience: Downsampled forDebugOnly & Increase number of component ads

LGTM1 On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 4:21:36 PM UTC-4 Paul Jensen wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:07 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:00 PM Paul Jensen wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:24 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to ship: MP4 container support for MediaRecorder

LGTM3 (Mozilla has responded that they think this makes sense) /Daniel On 2024-03-06 22:02, 'Sunggook Chue' via blink-dev wrote: Request for Mozilla: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/996. Yes, the new feature already works on Safari. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Standard-compliant pseudo-element argument for getComputedStyle & KeyframeEffect

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-13 16:19, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:59 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:36 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:36:07 AM UTC-4 Noam Rosenthal wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Adding Cross-site Ancestor Chain Bit to CHIPS Partition Key

Also, can you flip on the relevant review gates in chromestatus.com? On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:24 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:46 PM 'Aaron Selya' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> The first mitigation listed here

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Adding Cross-site Ancestor Chain Bit to CHIPS Partition Key

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:46 PM 'Aaron Selya' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > The first mitigation listed here is to migrate existing >> partitioned cookies to include the new bit, and the second mitigation is to >> have a flag that can disable this feature. Would disabling the

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Standard-compliant pseudo-element argument for getComputedStyle & KeyframeEffect

LGTM2 On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:59 AM Noam Rosenthal wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:36 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < > yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:36:07 AM UTC-4 Noam Rosenthal wrote: >> >> I've run a rough HTTP archive query on it, testing

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: RegExp duplicate named capture groups

LGTM3 /Daniel On 2024-03-11 17:16, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: LGTM2 On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:00 PM Shu-yu Guo wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 8:26 AM Mike Taylor wrote: On 3/11/24 6:49 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote: On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 4:26 PM Mike

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Standard-compliant pseudo-element argument for getComputedStyle & KeyframeEffect

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:36 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:36:07 AM UTC-4 Noam Rosenthal wrote: > > I've run a rough HTTP archive query on it, testing all HTTP responses last > month (666 million): > getComputedStyle with an

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

I don't know the ServiceWorker mechanisms too much, but if the Javascript dies in 30 seconds then WebGPU operations will soon after. There isn't a lot of use in keeping WebGPU computations running for much longer as Javascript is needed to get the result of any computation in any useful places

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM CORS requirement on ID assertion endpoint

On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:37:29 AM UTC-4 Yoav Weiss wrote: On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 3:11:24 PM UTC-4 Nicolás Peña wrote: Regarding risk: we are going to implement this and test the IDPs we know are currently using FedCM, but we do not anticipate them to break since they are

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Standard-compliant pseudo-element argument for getComputedStyle & KeyframeEffect

On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:36:07 AM UTC-4 Noam Rosenthal wrote: I've run a rough HTTP archive query on it, testing all HTTP responses last month (666 million): getComputedStyle with an argument that doesn't begin with "::" is called in 0.45% of pages, out of which 55% is ":before", 28%

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM CORS requirement on ID assertion endpoint

On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 3:11:24 PM UTC-4 Nicolás Peña wrote: Regarding risk: we are going to implement this and test the IDPs we know are currently using FedCM, but we do not anticipate them to break since they are currently already relying on using third-party cookies in iframes. We

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

Just to ask what is probably a FAQ to get it out here... The Service Worker timeout is 30 seconds right, so regardless of how heavy the calculations are, a service worker and its associated calculations will die in 30 seconds after the user closes the associated page? I ask because while

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: WebGPU: ServiceWorker and SharedWorker support

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:14 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 15:10 'François Beaufort' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:58 PM Mike Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> On 3/11/24 4:06 PM,