+1 to documenting Chromium's behavior in an evergreen format even if this
isn't formally specified. I am constantly getting questions from developers
about this and it is driving FUD about the capability of the web platform.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:47 PM Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> LGTM3.
>
>
LGTM3.
With my HTML Standard editor hat on, I agree that this area does not
benefit from tight specification.
However, in the past we've seen web developers be pretty confused by what
each browser's behavior is, for this and other inactive-tab /
offscreen-iframe / etc. throttling behaviors.
LGTM2
On 3/26/24 1:27 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:
LGTM1
On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 4:42:55 PM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote:
Thank you for the answers Etienne. Once the Testing bit has been
requested, I'm happy to give an LGTM.
On 3/25/24 11:08 AM, Etienne Pierre-doray wrote:
LGTM1
On Monday, March 25, 2024 at 4:42:55 PM UTC+1 Mike Taylor wrote:
> Thank you for the answers Etienne. Once the Testing bit has been
> requested, I'm happy to give an LGTM.
> On 3/25/24 11:08 AM, Etienne Pierre-doray wrote:
>
> Right - that's my question. I also asked how similar this
Thank you for the answers Etienne. Once the Testing bit has been
requested, I'm happy to give an LGTM.
On 3/25/24 11:08 AM, Etienne Pierre-doray wrote:
Right - that's my question. I also asked how similar this change
is to whatever Safari implements - do they also align wakeups of
>
> Right - that's my question. I also asked how similar this change is to
> whatever Safari implements - do they also align wakeups of JS timers for
> cross-origin, < 75% of viewport, frames that haven't yet received a user
> gesture? You previously wrote "non-interacted cross origin frames" for
On 3/22/24 1:37 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:11 AM Zheda Chen wrote:
The privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability gates are requested
on Chrome Status. Testing gate to be requested later.
Thanks - we've been asked to not send LGTMs until all bits have
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:11 AM Zheda Chen wrote:
> The privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability gates are requested on
> Chrome Status. Testing gate to be requested later.
>
> "Unimportant" cross origin frames means they are cross-origin, visible but
> use non-large proportion (<75%) of
The privacy/security/enterprise/debuggability gates are requested on Chrome
Status. Testing gate to be requested later.
"Unimportant" cross origin frames means they are cross-origin, visible but
use non-large proportion (<75%) of page's visible area and have not
received a user gesture. All 3
You should be able to see all the various bits for approvals in your
chromestatus entry now, can you fill them out please?
There have been a few questions/comments about the lack of clarity of
what "unimportant cross-origin frames" are. What exactly is the
definition? You mention that Safari
*Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant
cross-origin frames*
Contact emails
zheda.c...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
Summary
Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant
The privacy and security teams review all intents, so requesting reviews
and answering the relevant questionnaires is the best path forward.
Looking forward to the new I2S - thanks!
On 3/14/24 11:22 AM, Zheda Chen wrote:
More details are updated in ChromeStatus, including interoperability
and
Yes the intent started as an origin trial, now more details and bullets are
added in ChromeStatus and I'm about to send "intent to ship".
As for your question about "alignment interval", the alignment interval for
Chromium would be 32ms. The specification mentions "the
SetTimeout/SetInterval
More details are updated in ChromeStatus, including interoperability and
compatibility risks, Safari/Firefox views, web platform tests. It compares
the behaviors across different browser vendors.
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
Will send the updated "intent to ship" to this
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
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
Can you fill out the interoperability and compatibility risks section here?
I don't think standards position requests are necessary, but saying how
this behavior might break existing sites that assume Chromium's current
behavior, and how this new behavior compares to WebKit and Gecko, would be
Okay I update the process stage in Chrome Platform Status, and paste the
newly-generated Intent above. Please take a look.
https://chromestatus.com/feature/5106220399853568
On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 8:57:59 PM UTC+8 Zheda Chen wrote:
> *Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up
*Intent to Ship: Add JavaScript timer wake up alignment for unimportant
cross-origin frames*
Contact emails
zheda.c...@intel.com, fdo...@chromium.org
Specification
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/timers-and-user-prompts.html
Summary
Align wake ups of JavaScript timers for unimportant
19 matches
Mail list logo
