Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS Upgrades

t;>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have had one report of a middlebox that returned an HTTP 404 >>>>>>>>>> error over HTTPS instead of rejecting the connection, causing >>>>>>>>>> breakage (the >&g

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Dangling markup in target name

LGTM3. -mike On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 4:52 PM Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:04 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > >> LGTM1 to ship. Risk seems very low (and worth it, given security >> improvements), but thanks for adding a runtime enabled feature. >> On 9/7/23 12:44 AM,

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

6 milestones is consistent with our OT process' recommendations. Still LGTM. Good luck with the experimentation. -mike On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 4:52 PM 'Simon Hangl' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I'd like to update the OT milestones mentioned above to an OT

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate TLS SHA-1 server signatures

r to your judgement. > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 2:50 AM Mike West wrote: > >> Per the conversation on the previous thread, carefully rolling this out >> to measure breakage seems like the right path forward. Do you have a >> timeline along which you'd like to run thi

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Request for Deprecation Trial: Deprecate TLS SHA-1 server signatures

Per the conversation on the previous thread, carefully rolling this out to measure breakage seems like the right path forward. Do you have a timeline along which you'd like to run this experiment? M115-M118? -mike On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:54 PM 'David Adrian' via blink-dev <

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

LGTM3 with all the caveats about careful rollout discussed above. -mike On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > OK - let's consider this I2S officially revived. Looking for a 3rd LGTM to > begin shipping in M115. > > We have implemented 3rd party deprecation trial support for

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS Upgrades

-mike On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:17 PM Rick Byers wrote: > As a long-time user of HTTPS-first mode, I'm excited to see this ship ASAP! > > On Wed, May 31, 2023, 5:29 a.m. 'Mike West' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:32 

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: BYOB support for Fetch

LGTM1. Following along with Mozilla's long-standing implementation SGTM, and obviates the need for a TAG review. It would be ideal to file an official standards position issue with WebKit, however, to make sure they understand that we do intend to ship this and can incorporate that information

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS Upgrades

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:32 AM Chris Thompson wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 3:36 AM Mike West wrote: > >> I am enthusiastic about this (and not just because it should allow us to >> deprecate/remove `Upgrade-Insecure-Requests`). A few comments inline: >> >> O

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: AbortSignal.any()

LGTM1. The risks you point to seem minor, and following along with Safari's implementation makes it more likely that we can land the feature in a way that sticks. Do you have insight into Mozilla's implementation progress? -mike On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:47 AM Scott Haseley wrote: > Contact

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HTTPS Upgrades

I am enthusiastic about this (and not just because it should allow us to deprecate/remove `Upgrade-Insecure-Requests`). A few comments inline: On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 1:13 AM Chris Thompson wrote: > Contact emailscth...@chromium.org, dadr...@google.com > >

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

I agree that https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6429 which the TAG pointed to seems tangential to `overlay`. It's somewhat unfortunate, though, that we don't seem to have responded to their feedback in the month since they gave it. The conversation in

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: “uuid-in-package” navigation with Web Bundles

LGTM2. -mike On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:38 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 to remove, given the extremely low usage > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:50 AM Hayato Ito wrote: > >> Primary eng (and PM) emails >> >> hay...@chromium.org, ksakam...@chromium.org, denom...@chromium.org >> >> Summary >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebAuthn PRF extension

LGTM1, with the suggestion that following up on Caleb's comments about the spec's privacy section would be appreciated. -mike On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:16 AM Morgaine (de la faye) wrote: > Hello. I don't have any present use cases as a web developer here, but I'm > very excited & thrilled to

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

th an unregistered issuer. > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:05 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> LGTM1 % resolving the following spec issues: >> >> https://github.com/WICG/trust-token-api/issues/232 >> >> https://github.com/WICG/trust-token-api/issue

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: Compute Pressure

Extending from M117 to M118 LGTM. -mike On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:14 AM 'Ajay Rahatekar' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hello API Owners, > > The Intent to Experiment mentions Origin Trial duration of M115 - M117. We > would like approval to have the Origin Trial for M115 -

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

enrollment? I'm not sure I understand why anyone would enroll if that's the case. :) -mike > > > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 11:45 AM Mike West wrote: > >> I agree with Rick on the merits, but would point out one aspect of the >> enrollment mechanism that I think d

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WGSLLanguageFeatures for WebGPU

LGTM2. -mike On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:10 AM 'Loko Kung' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks Yoav for taking a look! Bumping this again since M115 branch point > is coming soon (May 23) and we still need 2 more LGTMs before I can land > the changes! > > On Tuesday, May 9,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: "is-cross-site" bit in the HTTP Cache Partitioning Key

Hey Andrew! On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 4:41 PM Andrew Williams wrote: > Contact emails > > awil...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > This change is not covered by an explainer, but the following are related: > > https://github.com/shivanigithub/http-cache-partitioning > > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

I agree with Rick on the merits, but would point out one aspect of the enrollment mechanism that I think does have interop considerations that Chromium needs to consider. If embedders have a gate on issuance, we need to ensure that both sides of that gate have defined developer-facing behavior.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove Web SQL

LGTM3. Good luck with the launch, I've been excited about this for a while and I'm looking forward to reducing our attack surface. -mike On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 3:21 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 - kudos to the team for the very detailed compat and risk analysis, > as well as proactively

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Update of "xml" prefix handling in lookupNamespaceURI() and createNSResolver()

LGTM1. Testing looks good, and skipping the TAG review for features specified and shipped in other browsers is pretty reasonable. The flat UseCounter also gives me confidence. :) -mike On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:50 AM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > Contact emailstk...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: data: URL in SVGUseElement

LGTM3. -mike On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 7:42 PM 'Jun Kokatsu' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Brandon! > > I'll make sure to do that! I'll ping you next week when I start to work > on it! > > Thanks, > > Jun > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 7:55 AM Brandon Heenan wrote: > >> One

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: 'display' property with multiple values

LGTM2. Skipping TAG review seems reasonable given that we're simply catching up to existing implementation and spec. -mike On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:36 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 > > Thanks for catching us up here! > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:13 AM TAMURA, Kent wrote: > >> Contact

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

n whether the PST system where some sites are > issuers and other sites redeem tokens is of interest to them. Apple has > been pursuing Private Access Tokens, which is a version of privacypass with > the device vendor acting as the issuing party. > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:46 PM '

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Private State Tokens API

I'm quite excited to see this ready to ship, thanks for the work you've put into it over the years. Both Mozilla and Apple's positions seem dependent upon analysis of the underlying Privacy Pass protocol. Have you had additional communication with them about how things are going, since it's

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: URLSearchParams.size

LGTM3. -mike On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 6:40 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:49 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> LGTM1, simple ergonomic addition. >> On 2/23/23 7:07 AM, Kenichi Ishibashi wrote: >> >> Contact emails ba...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer This is a small

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to remove: prefetch-src

LGTM0 (I'm recused, as this has my name on it). For a little more color, we accidentally shipped `prefetch-src` in M92 when moving CSP parsing out of the renderer. The check in

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: View Transitions: single-page apps

LGTM2. That said, I'd note Mozilla's desire in the standards position thread to couple this with the multi-page transition work. I agree with your position that the two can be decoupled, and I don't see anything that screams back-compat risk skimming through the followup issues that the TAG

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Network State Partitioning

LGTM3. Thanks for your close collaboration with the security team here; I think the compromise you landed on is both reasonable and good. -mike On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 8:13 PM Chris Harrelson wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:33 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> >> Thanks for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS pseudo-class ":picture-in-picture"

LGTM2, for the same reason. That said, there are a number of open bugs against the repository. Have you done any triage against them to see whether any might be compatibility issues in the future? -mike On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:51 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > I think that reviving this 3.5 years

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Resizable ArrayBuffer and growable SharedArrayBuffer

LGTM2. -mike On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 4:06 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 6:54 PM Marja Hölttä wrote: > >> Thanks for the LGTM! >> >> Re: "wouldn't the userland name win" - typically the situation is more >> complicated than that. E.g., one part of the user code marks

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ClientHello extension permutation

LGTM1, modulo surprises in the standards positions feedback. This is clearly a security-positive change, insofar as it preserves our ability to make changes to TLS over time. I expect you'll need a careful rollout (and that middleboxes will cause problems), but I also expect you know that

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Cookies Having Independent Partitioned State (CHIPS)

LGTM1. I think the loss of the domain restriction is quite unfortunate, but I understand why you landed on that as the simplest path for deployment. My feeling is that folks are going to have to rework things in any event, and this would be an opportune time to revisit

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: web-share permission policy

LGTM3. -mike On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 4:24:43 PM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2. I think we should expect some compat issues with this change, but > they're currently the ones experienced by Safari and Firefox: > > https://github.com/jsbin/jsbin/issues/3485 >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Incoming Call Notifications

The explainer mentions some security/privacy concerns, but I think it underestimates the risk. Notifications are widely abused today, and various teams are involved in cleaning up various bits of the ecosystem. This seems like it could be a step back if we're not careful about the way we build it,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Ready for Trial: Quick intensive timer throttling of loaded background pages

2022 at 9:47 AM François Doray wrote: >> >>> Thanks! I started the 1% Stable experiment. I will share an overview of >>> the results in ~3 weeks. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:21 AM Mike West wrote: >>> >>>> IMO, this is somewhere on

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Send Mouse Events to Disabled Form Controls

LGTM3 -mike On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 3:32 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 10/25/22 4:58 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 for (almost) aligning with Gecko. Please file bugs to get us to full > alignment. > > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 12:22:16 AM UTC+2 Joey Arhar wrote: > >> > Is there

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Cookies Having Independent Partitioned State (CHIPS)

Thanks for the work you've put in through security and privacy review on this feature. It's an important step towards our ability to remove third-party cookie access, and I'm looking forward to seeing it used more widely in the future as we continue down that path. That said, I have a few

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship : HTTP response status code in Resource Timing

LGTM1. Thanks for taking feedback around security concerns into account. -mike On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:55 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Amazing work!! Exciting stuff! > > (Recusing myself, as I was somewhat involved) > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 5:37 PM Abin Paul wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Align Timers (including DOM timers) at 125 Hz

LGTM2. -mike On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:59 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > Thanks Etienne. > > LGTM1 to ship - good luck with the rollout. > > On 10/20/22 12:18 PM, Etienne Pierre-doray wrote: > > Have we asked Mozilla for a signal? > > I haven't asked for a signal. I can ask but this feels N/A; this

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Android OSK resizes visual viewport by default + opt-out

LGTM3. -mike On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 4:56 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 under the same conditions! > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 2:23 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > >> I see that Emilio has approved >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/7826, with a few suggestions. >> >> LGTM1 to ship w/ the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Network State Partitioning (once more, with feeling)

You've got your LGTM already, but I'll double-LGTM it just to say that I appreciate the care you're putting into gathering data to support the decisions we make here. Thank you. -mike On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 10:01 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM for a 1% stable experiment > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: User Agent Reduction Origin Trial

e different from a regular OT, there's not >>>>>>>>> really a "burn-in risk" to be worried about since this isn't really >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> any new functionality sites want access to. So LG

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: AudioContext.setSinkId()

Friendly ping. It looks like conversation died down ~2 weeks ago. Has there been movement in the meantime, or should we consider this intent on hold for a while? -mike On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 11:21:13 AM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote: > Once the PR lands, this seems fine to ship (IMO). Let

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Values and Units Module Level 4: Small/Large/Dynamic/Logical viewport units

LGTM1. It's great to see us following along with WebKit and Gecko's implementations of these viewport units. The coverage in WPT looks reasonably solid ( https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-values?label=master=experimental=chrome=firefox=safari=interop=label%3Ainterop-2022-viewport), and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Web Authentication Conditional UI

LGTM1. The internal privacy/security review concluded that the design of the developer flow's integration with an autofill prompt substantially mitigates privacy concerns around knowing whether the user has credentials. `isConditionalMediationAvailable` is tied to the underlying platform which

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Sync methods for FileSystemSyncAccessHandle in File System Access API

LGTM2, seconding Yoav's note to ensure that folks you know are using the API test their code earlier rather than later to shake out bugs this behavioral change might trigger. -mike On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 7:00:17 AM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 > Seems good to make this change

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System (OPFS) on Android

LGTM3. -mike On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:12:50 PM UTC+2 ds...@google.com wrote: > Thanks for the review! > > WPT is no longer available > > > to run on Android. > > It looks like

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH)

bit.) > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 4:06 PM Mike West wrote: > >> I'm excited to see this! One question inline about timelines: >> >> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:55:48 PM UTC+2 David Benjamin wrote: >> >>> Contact emailsdavi...@chromium

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: FileSystemHandle Unique IDs

Hi! I've skimmed through the explainer, but I feel like I'm missing something important. Can you help me understand the difference between the scheme proposed here on the one hand, and relying on something like Crypto.randomUUID()

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Experiment: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH)

I'm excited to see this! One question inline about timelines: On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:55:48 PM UTC+2 David Benjamin wrote: > Contact emailsdavi...@chromium.org, dad...@google.com > > ExplainerNone > > Specificationhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni > > Summary >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Client Hints persistency in Android WebView

LGTM1 to extend this already-approved feature to WebView. Presumably you'll be chatting with WebView experts about any implications this might have for the API WebView exposed to embedding apps? -mike On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:45 PM Ari Chivukula wrote: > Contact emails > >

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Ready for Trial: Quick intensive timer throttling of loaded background pages

IMO, this is somewhere on the border between a web-visible experiment and a pure expression of user agent preference regarding flexibility explicitly carved out in a standard. Rather than debating the feature's philosophical state, I'd simply treat this email as an Intent to Experiment from M104

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: WebCodecs dequeue event

LGTM2. I agree with Philip's suggestion that this is a small change that doesn't require running Web Codecs back through TAG review, and that the continued support of an editor at Mozilla is sufficient to consider their position on the underlying API unchanged. -mike On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Intl.NumberFormat v3 API

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:23 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 7/27/22 8:08 AM, Daniel Bratell wrote: > > LGTM1 > > /Daniel > On 2022-07-23 02:41, Frank Tang wrote: > > It was flip to stage on m105 and try to flip to ship for m106 > R2T for m105 could be found on 1Q2FHx9hBAAJ

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: fetch() upload streaming

LGTM2, also assuming you handle Mozilla's concerns reasonably. I'm happy to see y'all have thought through the CORS implications, and requiring `cors` or `same-origin` requests alleviates my minor concerns about leaking a server's support for HTTP/1 vs HTTP/2+. -mike On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Syntax changes to markup based Client Hints delegation

LGTM3. -mike On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 9:03 PM Ari Chivukula wrote: > Combining the addition of the new syntax and the removal of the old one > works. I'll update the language on the chrome status feature page. There > won't be an issue getting the code in for M105 assuming we get the third >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add onbeforeinput global event handler content attribute

LGTM3. +Daniel Vogelheim to make sure any implications for Trusted Types and/or the Sanitizer API are taken care of. -mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 6:28 PM Mason Freed wrote: > > > On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 9:25:25 AM UTC-7 Mason Freed wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 6:58:53 PM

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Expect-CT

LTGM2. Good luck with the removal. -mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 6:44 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 to deprecate and remove. > Please roll out the removal carefully. I'd similarly be surprised if the > removal causes breakage, but I have been surprised before, so.. :) > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at

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

I'm excited about shipping MathML. I don't think it's necessary for us to wait O(months) for printing to work correctly, but I do think it's critical for us to give users who try to print some way of understanding that the rendering failure is not their fault. It would be unfortunate if folks

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS :modal Pseudo Class

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:50 PM Manuel Rego Casasnovas wrote: > LGTM2 too with Philip's requests. > > On 29/06/2022 17:48, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > > LGTM1 to ship this with the latest spec changes applied, and WPT > > written and passing for that. > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Writable directory prompts for the File System Access API

LGTM2. Thank you for working with the permissions and UX teams to hammer out a reasonable approach here. -mike On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:40 PM 'Austin Sullivan' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > PR is landed > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 3:09 PM Austin Sullivan wrote: > >> I was

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: navigateEvent.intercept()

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:57 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 6/22/22 12:23 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:25 AM Nate Chapin wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >> jap...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium.org >> >> Specification >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remote: navigateEvent.transitionWhile()

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:57 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 6/22/22 12:24 PM, Chris Harrelson wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:25 AM Nate Chapin wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >> jap...@chromium.org, dome...@chromium.org >> >> Specification >> >>

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: WebSQL in non-secure contexts

I'm happy to see this moving forward, thanks for pushing it ahead! That said, this seems like the kind of thing that's likely-enough to impact enterprise that we should include a temporary opt-out to give ourselves some wiggle room if it turns out that we're undercounting usage. Have y'all

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: U2F API (Cryptotoken)

I think that's what Martin's email suggests ("We would still like to close new trial registrations on July 26, and grant renewals beyond July 26 only to existing participants that contact us directly."). Assuming that's the case, a two milestone extension doesn't seem overly burdensome from a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.1

at 12:12 AM Łukasz Anforowicz > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:24 AM Yoav Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 2:56 AM Łukasz Anforowicz >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Container Queries

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:04 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > It's great to see y'all working with the broader community on this!! > > On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 10:09:23 AM UTC+2 Kent Tamura wrote: > >> LGTM1. This has very strong signals! >> >> >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Implement and Ship: Fullscreen Capability Delegation

LGTM2. -mike On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:37 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > Hey Mustaq - welcome back. :) > > Thanks for the answers, and for requesting the missing WebKit position. > > LGTM1 > > On 5/9/22 5:04 PM, Mustaq Ahmed wrote: > > Hi Mike: > > Sorry for the delay due to vacation etc! Below

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: "deflate-raw" on compression and decompression streams

LGTM1. This seems like a logical extension of the existing compression streams mechanism that was discussed at the time, delayed only due to prioritization, not design considerations. It makes a common use case simpler for developers, and does so in a way that's consistent with the rest of the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype + Ship: User Activation Requirement for SPC Credential Enrollment

LGTM2. -mike On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:01 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1 - this seems like a useful change. Thanks for involving partners. > > On 5/5/22 12:23 PM, Nick Burris wrote: > > Contact emails > > nbur...@chromium.org, rous...@chromium.org, smcgr...@chromium.org > > Explainer > > SPC

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Opaque Response Blocking (ORB, aka CORB++) v0.1

Hey Łukasz, I'm in favor of shipping this change. It will harden our defenses against side-channel attacks at minimal web-visible cost, and clear a path for a WebKit implementation that some folks have expressed interest in (see the CORB thread on webkit-dev@

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: User Agent Client Hints GREASE Update

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:37 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2022-05-03 16:23, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > Thanks for aligning with the spec and tackling this change carefully. > Hoping it sticks. > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 4:18 PM Matt Reichhoff > wrote: >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Fenced frames

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:48:53 PM UTC+2 Shivani Sharma wrote: > Thanks Yoav! > > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 7:27 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:31 AM Shivani Sharma >> wrote: >> >>> Contact emails >>> >>> shivani...@chromium.org, d...@chromium.org,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Battery Status API in Insecure Origins

tes the current deprecation message and >>> mentions the feature will be removed in M104, not M103. What's not clear is >>> whether it would be possible to warn users if the feature flag is on and a >>> website tries to use the Battery Status API in an http page, as

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Battery Status API in Insecure Origins

I'm less worried about this than Yoav is. Given the lack of support in any other browser, and the progressive-enhancement nature of this API, it's difficult for me to imagine embedded content visibly breaking at scale. If y'all do some spot-checking of the sites currently showing up through

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

LGTM3. -mike On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:57:48 PM UTC+2 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > I share MikeT's excitement about this API, and hopeful it can provide both > ergonomics wins for developers as well as predictability wins for browsers > when it comes to SPAs and navigations. > > On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Cookie Expires/Max-Age attribute upper limit

LGTM2. I recognize Yoav's concern, and I think it's reasonable, but I'm less concerned about it than he is. Still, adding the metrics under discussion here is a good step, and if they cause us to reevaluate the impact, we'll have plenty of time to do so. -mike On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

t; and specific options would be needed to use them in other file systems. >>>> Since the OPFS use case is the one that has been proven with trials, and >>>> the one that other browsers intend to implement for now, I think it makes >>>> sense to leave it as the defau

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Emanuel Krivoy wrote: > Hey Yoav, > > >> So the plan is to land the PR in WICG, and then (immediately) move it >> over to https://fs.spec.whatwg.org/? >> What are the current blockers for the WICG PR from landing? >> > > My plan would be to act on the current

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Omnibox Prerendering

LGTM1. The two issues I considered blocking were Alex's concerns around opt-out, and the BroadcastChannel integration. It seems to me like there's still discussion to be had on even better solutions than y'all have landed on for both (headers in the one case, more explicit integration with

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype + Ship: Secure Payment Confirmation API V3

LGTM3. On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:08:29 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:52 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> On 3/15/22 4:42 PM, Nick Burris wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mike Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> On 3/9/22 10:27 AM, Nick Burris wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add Save Data Client Hint

is to determine how many sites rely upon the current spelling of the header to change user-facing behavior? It seems like there might be strong reliance interests here, given the header's long tenure. -mike > ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:05 AM

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype and Ship: font-palette and custom @font-palette-values palettes

LGTM3. -mike On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:12 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 3/15/22 11:20 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 - given the early positive signal and the fact it's already shipping > in Safari. Please follow up on any feedback from others if it comes up on > that thread. > > On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add Save Data Client Hint

Hey Avi! Two questions, one small, one large: First, to reduce header bloat, the approach of not sending headers by default whose value is `?0` seems reasonable. Fetch Metadata's `Sec-Fetch-User` header is a good example of this.

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Multi-Screen Window Placement

LGTM3. Thanks for the work y'all have done with the security and privacy teams to get this in the right place. I believe permissions folks want to follow up about the shape of the final implementation from a UX perspective, so please ensure that you chat with +Illia Klimov and/or +Balazs Engedy

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Experiment: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

Hey Emanuel, With my comments on the storage foundation I2E in mind, it looks like good, cross-vendor progress is being made on refining Access Handles' implementation and specification. There's clear engagement

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

Hey Emanuel, API owners discussed this intent this week and the week before, with a fair amount of skepticism around the length of the experimentation (April 2021 (90) - May 2022 (101)), and the value of continuing this experiment in light of what looks like reasonable alignment from our

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: HIDDevice forget()

LGTM3. -mike On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:44 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > About web tests, is there no method that behaves differently in an > observable way when the permission isn't given? > > /Daniel > On 2022-02-09 10:27, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1. Seems like a small and useful

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: User-Agent Reduction Phase 4 (minor version reduction)

LGTM3. -mike On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC+1 Rick Byers wrote: > LGTM2 > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:27 PM Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM Mike Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> *Contact emails* >>> >>> >>> >>> * miketa...@chromium.org ,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Support for filesystem URLs on Android media

removing AppCache >> from Blink, and we're planning to focus on WebSQL next. Though, maybe >> you're saying that *filesystem:* URLs are worse, and we should tackle >> them first? >> >> I hope this helps! >> Victor >> >> >> >>

[blink-dev] Re: Intent To Experiment: User-Agent Client Hints GREASE Update

LGTM to experiment with this change on a small percentage of stable in M98 and M99. Presumably you'll be keeping an eye on metrics and bug reports to roll it back in case unexpected incompatibility is discovered. Out of curiosity, what is the new character set with which you'll be working? The

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Support for filesystem URLs on Android media

I worry that removing `filesystem:` for media elements on Android, while maintaining support for other platforms, will end up causing some developer confusion without much value for the codebase as a whole (since we need to maintain all the exciting bits and pieces of infrastructure). Are the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Conditional Focus

Hey Elad! Did anyone at all use this feature via the OT? If so, it would be helpful to understand whether you had any feedback that would inform this new experiment. If no one used it at all, then this really would be a no-op, and I think we'd happily approve shifting the milestones. -mike

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Transferable MediaStreamTracks

Hey Tony! My understanding of the transfer mechanism is that the transferring context loses control of the stream, handing it off to the receiving context. The stream source remains with the original context, however, and I'm wondering whether that provides an opportunity for replicating the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ALPN extension in wss-schemed WebSockets connections

does, racing two connections, or whatever else. This Intent > would be a prerequisite to doing that, but leaves the question for later.) > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 5:49 AM Mike West wrote: > >> LGTM2. From a Fetch perspective, there shouldn't be a difference between >> the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ALPN extension in wss-schemed WebSockets connections

LGTM2. From a Fetch perspective, there shouldn't be a difference between the way we establish a Web Socket connection and regular ol' HTTP requests. Aligning our behavior with other vendors in this respect is appreciated! -mike On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:22 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Battery Status API in Insecure Origins

LGTM1 to restrict this API to secure contexts with a 3 milestone deprecation window. If blockers come up in the meantime, we can reevaluate, but I'm satisfied with the spot checks you've done against existing usage. -mike On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:28 AM 'Thomas Steiner' via blink-dev <

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Same-origin prerendering triggered by the speculation rules API

s follows: > > Estimated milestones > > Previous experiment timeline: M94 to M98 > > Requested extension timeline: *M99 to M100* > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:33 AM Mike West wrote: > >> In that case, do you need 4 more milestones? We've set a cap of 9 >> mileston

  1   2   >