As I understand it, this OT is entirely about taking away functionality (grants nothing new which a site might take a dependency on). Therefore I don't think the usage limits are providing much, if any, value. At the same time, I can see the value of being able to test this upcoming behavior at a large scale.
So, with API owner hat on, I propose we just turn them off for this trial. Thoughts? Rick On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 3:03 PM Nir M <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > Nir from Meta and Noah's peer. > > would it be possible to give an estimate or a guideline on the permissible > magnitude of usage for the Opt-In trial (the one that forces the full > reduction of the UserAgent) available? > As we would like to conduct an experiment on that, and not deviate from > the 0.5% restriction of global page loads, we need an idea of how many > users will be able to be getting this experimental behavior. > would love to hear more details on that if you could provide. > > Link to the limitation reference on Origin-Trial: > > https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/developer-guide.md#6-is-there-any-restriction-on-which-websites-can-sign-up-to-use-experimental-features > > > > thanks, > Nir > > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 9:27:20 PM UTC+3 [email protected] wrote: > >> Hi Noah, >> >> Thanks for reaching out - we've received a request just yesterday from >> another partner who also expressed interest in an extension, so I will work >> on an Intent to Extend Experiment in the next few days and we'll see what >> the Blink API Owners think. :) >> >> thanks, >> Mike >> >> On 7/26/22 1:40 PM, Noah Lemen wrote: >> >> Are there any plans to extend this Origin Trial? We (Meta) are >> considering using it to test the impact of UA reduction, but just noticed >> that its "end date" is tomorrow, and was marked with availability ending >> after version 103. >> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5:29:45 PM UTC-4 [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> Just an FYI, the blog post has been updated to give instructions on how >>> to participate in the User-Agent Reduction Origin Trial as a third-party >>> embed: >>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/user-agent-reduction-origin-trial/#how-to-participate-in-the-origin-trial-as-a-third-party-embed >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> A blog post just went out for this OT: >>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/user-agent-reduction-origin-trial/ >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:47 AM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> An update on this: it will be too rushed to get the User-Agent >>>>> Reduction OT into the M94 branch cutoff (this Thursday), so we moved this >>>>> OT for the M95 release. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:02 PM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> An update on this: it will be too rushed to get the User-Agent >>>>>> Reduction OT into the M94 branch cutoff (this Thursday), so we moved this >>>>>> OT for the M95 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:39 PM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback and the LGTMs, everyone! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:30 PM Rick Byers <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree this OT is quite 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 LGTM3 for a longer >>>>>>>> trial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If necessary I'd also be supportive of expanding usage limits >>>>>>>> arbitrarily. The more usage we can get of this trial, the lower the >>>>>>>> compat >>>>>>>> risk will be of making the breaking change later. So in this case it >>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>> no sense to worry about excessive usage of the OT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm glad to hear the inherited JS semantics will match that of the >>>>>>>> header. Like for the header, I'd otherwise be worried about masking >>>>>>>> potential compat issues if that JS APIs were unaffected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:18 AM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:02 AM Mike West <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarifications, Ali. This looks pretty reasonable >>>>>>>>>> to me. LGTM1 % the below: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would recommend that you adjust the design doc to remove the >>>>>>>>>> reference to "a client hint token that will reduce the User-Agent >>>>>>>>>> header", >>>>>>>>>> as it doesn't sound like that's what you're aiming to experiment >>>>>>>>>> with. My >>>>>>>>>> understanding of your response is that you'll only adjust the UA in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> presence of the Origin Trial token. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I updated >>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1feIxK9S7oNgT2oGGebbxE9X0O-4wTKcsP_gRaY99tq4/edit#heading=h.x5gzpen7eyc> >>>>>>>>> the design doc to make the point clear that the UA will only be >>>>>>>>> reduced in >>>>>>>>> the presence of the OT token, and I clarified the role of the new >>>>>>>>> client >>>>>>>>> hint in all this. Thanks for the feedback! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With regard to the OT schedule, ~6 months from M94 would take us >>>>>>>>>> more or less through M100. In >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-api-owners-discuss/c/dhfejxAtj84/m/vr889GowAgAJ, >>>>>>>>>> we agreed (but I don't think documented... I'll fix that) that we'd >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> taking ~4 milestones as a typical OT length as we shift into a 4-week >>>>>>>>>> cadence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That said, it sounds like you want to use this experiment as a >>>>>>>>>> lead-in to a behavior change and deprecation trial, and holding you >>>>>>>>>> to 4 >>>>>>>>>> milestones would put you squarely in the holiday season of M98. I'm >>>>>>>>>> comfortable with y'all extending this out a little longer than >>>>>>>>>> usual, but >>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate two other API owners weighing in to confirm that plan. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -mike >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:55 PM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Mike, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your questions. Answers inline. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:15 AM Mike West <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Ali, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are a few details here that I'm not sure I understand. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The linked design doc describes opting into UA reduction >>>>>>>>>>>> through both an origin trial, and a client hint-based opt-in. Does >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> intent include both mechanisms? Or is it only about the origin >>>>>>>>>>>> trial? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The I2E is for an origin trial that would control two behaviors: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The Javascript getters for user agent data (e.g. >>>>>>>>>>> navigator.userAgent) >>>>>>>>>>> 2. The new Client Hint `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` that would >>>>>>>>>>> indicate to the origin that the HTTP header "User-Agent" >>>>>>>>>>> contains a reduced >>>>>>>>>>> value, not the full UA string. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Does a top-level document's opt-in to the origin trial >>>>>>>>>>>> control the UA headers received by requests made from documents it >>>>>>>>>>>> embeds? >>>>>>>>>>>> That is, if a page at A opts-into the OT, and embeds a page from B >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> does not opt-in, what UA headers will requests initiated from B >>>>>>>>>>>> contain? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The plan was for the requests sent for embedded page B to also >>>>>>>>>>> include the reduced UA string along with the `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` >>>>>>>>>>> Client >>>>>>>>>>> Hint, even if B is not opted-in to the Origin Trial. This would be >>>>>>>>>>> accomplished through setting "allow same-origin and cross-origin" >>>>>>>>>>> Permission Policy for the `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` client hint. The >>>>>>>>>>> feeling was >>>>>>>>>>> that, it would be hard to know if a top-level site is truly >>>>>>>>>>> functioning >>>>>>>>>>> correctly in the presence of UA reduction if only it, but not its >>>>>>>>>>> embedded >>>>>>>>>>> subresources, are receiving the reduced UA string. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, what does B have access to via JavaScript? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Great question - while subresource requests sent to B would >>>>>>>>>>> include the reduced UA and `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` headers, the >>>>>>>>>>> JavaScript for >>>>>>>>>>> B would *not* have access to the reduced UA unless it was also >>>>>>>>>>> registered for the OT. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Are top-level navigations affected? That is, if A in the >>>>>>>>>>>> example above opts-into the OT, and then navigates to B at the top >>>>>>>>>>>> level, >>>>>>>>>>>> what UA header is delivered? Does the answer change if A navigates >>>>>>>>>>>> same-origin to another page on A? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If there is a top-level navigation to A for the *first* time, >>>>>>>>>>> then it will not receive the reduced UA and the new client hint >>>>>>>>>>> (although >>>>>>>>>>> the initial navigation request could be retried with the reduced UA >>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>> Critical-CH is set and the OT token is valid). All subsequent >>>>>>>>>>> navigations >>>>>>>>>>> to A, including if A navigates to a same-origin page on A, will >>>>>>>>>>> include the >>>>>>>>>>> reduced UA string and `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` header. This would hold >>>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>> the browser is restarted or session data is cleared, which would >>>>>>>>>>> also clear >>>>>>>>>>> the Accept-CH cache. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For the subresource requests made from A to B, while B would >>>>>>>>>>> include the headers sent to A (including the reduced UA string), B >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> *not* save the client hint in its Accept-CH cache. Therefore, >>>>>>>>>>> a subsequent navigation to B would *not* include the reduced UA >>>>>>>>>>> string nor the `Sec-CH-UA-Reduced` header, since it is not opted-in >>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>> OT. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The behavior can be summed up as "if the top-level navigation is >>>>>>>>>>> opted-in, send the reduced UA to the top-level origin as well as all >>>>>>>>>>> subresource requests, including to those of a different origin". >>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>> feedback we received thus far from potential partner sites was that >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> would be most useful if the same UA was sent on subresource >>>>>>>>>>> requests to >>>>>>>>>>> realize and handle any potential breakage. This also seems >>>>>>>>>>> consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> how current client hints work - the same client hints are sent for >>>>>>>>>>> cross-origin subresource requests as long as the Permission Policy >>>>>>>>>>> allows >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We also considered the idea of requiring B to sign up for a >>>>>>>>>>> third-party matching Origin Trial, but that seemed to us like it >>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>> too much overhead for the top-level sites to have to work through. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. What's your experimentation timeline? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We were hoping to get the origin trial experiment in by the >>>>>>>>>>> feature freeze for M94. The goal would be to run a 6-month >>>>>>>>>>> experiment. >>>>>>>>>>> Then, we would like to run a 6-month deprecation trial thereafter (a >>>>>>>>>>> separate I2E would be sent for that) which would send the reduced >>>>>>>>>>> UA string >>>>>>>>>>> by default, but enable those origins opted into the deprecation >>>>>>>>>>> trial to >>>>>>>>>>> still receive the full UA string. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -mike >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 1:31 AM Ali Beyad <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to proceed with a regular origin trial >>>>>>>>>>>>> and look at requesting higher usage limits if/when we get >>>>>>>>>>>>> commitments and >>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates for participation in the UA reduction experiment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 2:06 PM Jason Chase < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 1:07:59 PM UTC-4 Ali Beyad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Contact emails *[email protected], [email protected], >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We want to reduce the amount of information the User Agent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string exposes in HTTP requests as well as in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navigator.userAgent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navigator.appVersion, and navigator.platform. The browser's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant version, its desktop/mobile distinction and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running on will continue to be sent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We would like to run an Origin Trial for sites to opt into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Reduced User-Agent (and related navigator properties) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proactively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test for breakage. See below for more details. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Design Doc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1feIxK9S7oNgT2oGGebbxE9X0O-4wTKcsP_gRaY99tq4/edit#heading=h.2navvbygwxwb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/640 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pending (https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/640 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The compatibility risk is low, as we’re planning to reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount of information in the UA string, rather than remove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the header. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most existing UA detection code should continue to work. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only future >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UA detection code that will need to move to use the UA client >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead. In the long term, we expect this change to improve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as UA detection based on UA-CH is bound to be more reliable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current status quo. We hope this Origin Trial will help us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flesh out site >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compat issues we can’t predict a priori. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for interoperability, other vendors are on board with UA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information reduction, but not necessarily with the UA Client >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that is supposed to replace it. That can create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tricky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation, where developers would need to rely on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> User-Agent string for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some browsers and on UA-CH for others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edge: Positive signals ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/_scottlow/status/1206831008261132289) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox: Public support for reducing UA string information - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “freezing the User Agent string without any client hints—seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth-prototyping” (from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/202#issuecomment-558294095 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari: Shipped to some extent. Safari has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely freeze the UA string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/rmondello/status/943545865204989953?lang=en> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the past, but somewhat reverted that decision >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182629#c6>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays, their UA string seems mostly frozen, with updates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser version. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: Mixed signals. Some positive comments on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter, blink-dev, etc., as well as some negative sentiment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiment Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This experiment is going to be a bit different from a normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Origin Trial; the goal is less about gathering information on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new API than it is about enabling developers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrators to test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ensure compatibility with our proposed changes. This change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large compat challenge with very subtle pitfalls and vast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it’s incredibly important we give developers any opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems at every level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for engaging with the trial itself, there will be two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components controlled by the same Origin Trial: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reducing the information in the associated JS getters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the Origin Trial is enabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A client hint that gets set when the Origin Trial is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, where the client hint indicates to the origin that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the User-Agent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request header contains the reduced value. Because of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experimental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of this client hint, a valid Origin Trial token must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sent in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response header by the origin for the client hint to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect or be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored (in order to prevent platform burn-in for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary client hint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> token). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During the process of conducting the Origin Trial, we may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find that we need to request an exception to the per-site (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global) limits imposed by Origin Trials. In practice, Origin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trials rarely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceed their quota limits, but if necessary, there is time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits have been exceeded and the Origin Trial is turned off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work with the users on reducing their usage and/or lifting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like the trial to opt-in (and opt-out) for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Page Freezing intervention >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/CWOstYR9rdc/m/knP4dVdKFAAJ>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, that trial didn't end up running at scale, so we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't end up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing the usage limits. It seems worth considering as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, noting the differences in burn-in risk for opting into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking behaviour vs taking advantage of new functionality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the design document >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1feIxK9S7oNgT2oGGebbxE9X0O-4wTKcsP_gRaY99tq4/edit#heading=h.2navvbygwxwb> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the experiment for more information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiment Goals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The goal of this trial is to enable developers to test how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing the User-Agent request header and the related >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navigator getters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will affect their systems and make sure they have all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need for an effective migration to User Agent Client Hints >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://web.dev/migrate-to-ua-ch/>. We hope that by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing sufficient time to test and provide feedback we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validate our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current plans for UA Reduction and safely roll them out to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web at large. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will be relying heavily on user and developer feedback to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand where breakage occurs, or where use cases are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will create a GitHub repository as well as a public mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gathering feedback. When the OT is ready, we plan to publish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance on how to enroll and provide feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Experiment Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite the proposed changes being net-positive in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> privacy, there are some compat risks, as many sites have come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to rely on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shape of the User-Agent header and related JS interfaces. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Site breakage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can take many forms, both obvious and non-obvious. However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since sites are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in control of the Origin-Trial and Accept-CH headers, a site >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can quickly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opt out of the experiment when breakage is encountered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No (All but WebView) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flag name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #reduce-user-agent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=955620 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1222742 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5704553745874944 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABJKADxFLTHtvYPzNzF%3Dy5wP4x%2BaK1cF3RRCWii7UjV54EjkSw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABJKADxFLTHtvYPzNzF%3Dy5wP4x%2BaK1cF3RRCWii7UjV54EjkSw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CA%2BWdJ_4jkExO4p9GdCdc7BUa8GBK0eota1q8EfEi%3D5%2BBuj3jCw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CA%2BWdJ_4jkExO4p9GdCdc7BUa8GBK0eota1q8EfEi%3D5%2BBuj3jCw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/a13aa138-d0de-4086-a9c8-e3973af041fcn%40chromium.org >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/a13aa138-d0de-4086-a9c8-e3973af041fcn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY9tZQynw7VkJH7iDioD%3DL75QT%2BJtQbshcnLQT%2BWWo%2BnpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
