Mircea: Since CHIPS is only enabled via Finch/ChromeVariations for versions Chrome 110-113. One other thing you could try is to set the ChromeVariations Policy <https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ChromeVariations> value to "CriticalFixesOnly" (value 1) temporarily; restart the browser, and check if that disables CHIPS. Note that this will also disable any other Chrome features that are enabled via Finch/ChromeVariations as well.
CHIPS is enabled by default in the binary starting in Chrome 114 (stable release date: May 30, 2023), so this mechanism will not be effective when your clients upgrade to Chrome 114. On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:29:15 PM UTC-4 Kaustubha Govind wrote: > Eric: Thanks for identifying the issue so quickly, and flagging this. > > Mircea: Since CHIPS is an opt-in feature; and isn't expected to impact > legacy code, we do not have an enterprise policy in place. The most > expedient fix here would be to identify the cookies that had the > Partitioned attribute mistakenly added, and to remove the attribute. I > believe Eric was able to pinpoint the exact cookie(s) in question; so I'm > hoping that this fix can be implemented quickly. Happy to discuss over a > call if helpful (we can make ourselves available over the weekend if > needed). > > On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4 Mircea Craciun wrote: > >> hi all, >> Eric explained already the issue that we are having . >> We have more than 1500 customers impacted by this change with Millions of >> end-users and no valid workaround on Corporate level. >> Is there any way to set up a Chrome policy for >> chrome://flags/#partitioned-cookies to disabled by default on Corporate >> level?Or on the next update at least to disable it by default and give us >> some time to fix our auth flow? >> On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:10:07 PM UTC+2 Eric Lawrence wrote: >> >>> There is not a Chrome Policy to control this feature (and no similar >>> mechanism for an Enterprise to turn >>> off chrome://flags/#partitioned-cookies), is there? >>> >>> I ask because a major enterprise SaaS vendor today reached out to me to >>> say that their product abruptly stopped working properly. >>> >>> Investigation revealed that their web App is dependent upon a SSO flow >>> where there's a subframe in the main page that checks for an auth cookie, >>> and failing to find one, the subframe spawns a new tab to the auth >>> provider. That new tab sets the cookie and closes its tab. The main page >>> then retries its operation, and (problematically) the subframe again >>> reports that its cookie was not set, and the new popup repeats. This >>> happens forever. >>> >>> I looked at traces and confirmed that the problem is that the Auth >>> provider is setting its cookie as "Partitioned" and this causes the cookie >>> to never appear in the subframe of the app. Turning off support for >>> Partitioned cookies causes the site to work correctly. >>> >>> I built a reduced repro here: >>> https://debugtheweb.com/test/auth/app.html >>> >>> Now, as far as I can tell, this is all expected as far as how things are >>> *supposed *to work, but this SaaS vendor is concerned that they don't >>> seem to have any sort of temporary escape hatch to give their customers >>> until the Web App devs can fix their auth flow (either changing the auth >>> provider to not use Partitioned, or changing the way the main site works >>> such that it is not impacted in this way). >>> >>> On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-5 dylan...@google.com wrote: >>> >>>> Good catch, Eric. I just updated the Chromestatus page for CHIPS to >>>> enabled by default on 114. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:33 AM Eric Lawrence <bay...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Should the change to "Enabled by default" appear for 114 on >>>>> https://chromestatus.com/roadmap ? >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-5 Kaustubha Govind wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> CHIPS is now enabled for 100% of Chrome 110+ users. The feature is >>>>>> also now enabled by default >>>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4385140> >>>>>> on the Chromium tip-of-tree, which corresponds to the Chrome 114 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:10:50 AM UTC-4 Kaustubha Govind >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:24 AM Alexandru Mihai <a.m...@eyeo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Awesome, thanks for letting me know 🙂 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The rollout will cover all versions from 110 to current, not just >>>>>>>> the latest version right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Correct, all versions from Chrome 110 onwards are covered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 30, 2023, at 03:49, Kaustubha Govind <kaust...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apologies for the late response. The rollout is currently still at >>>>>>>> 10%; but we've been able to make progress on resolving metrics >>>>>>>> regressions; >>>>>>>> and intend to go to 100% either later this week, or early next week. >>>>>>>> We'll >>>>>>>> send an update here when that happens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:47:46 PM UTC-4 Alexandru Mihai >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi @Dylan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's the current status of the rollout? Have you moved to 50%? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Alex M >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:48:09 PM UTC+2 Dylan Cutler wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another update. We decided to roll out CHIPS to 10% of stable >>>>>>>>> instead of 50% to get a better picture on whether CHIPS is having >>>>>>>>> impacts >>>>>>>>> on any of our guiding metrics before rolling out to 50%. Our plan is >>>>>>>>> to let >>>>>>>>> the experiment gather data for 7 days at 10% before checking metrics >>>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>>> and rolling out to 50%. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dylan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:15 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We were planning to ramp up CHIPS to 50% of stable this week, but >>>>>>>>> upon doing metrics analysis we see some guardrail metrics have >>>>>>>>> variations >>>>>>>>> between our control/experiment groups. We are delaying the ramp-up a >>>>>>>>> couple >>>>>>>>> days to do additional analysis to make sure the variations are >>>>>>>>> legitimate >>>>>>>>> and/or are actually caused by partitioned cookies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dylan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 6:40 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another update for CHIPS, we will be rolling out to 5% stable >>>>>>>>> starting tomorrow. Canary/beta/dev will remain enabled at 50%. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dylan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:36 AM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have enabled the PartitionedCookies feature on 1% of stable. We >>>>>>>>> will continue to keep the feature enabled on 50% of canary/dev/beta. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dylan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-5 Dylan Cutler >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another quick update. Due to a partitioned cookies privacy bug >>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1405772> >>>>>>>>> that was discovered, we have to delay the launch of CHIPS to M110, >>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>> the most recent release with the patch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since M110 has been released to beta, we have enabled the >>>>>>>>> PartitionedCookies feature on 50% of dev/beta/canary. We will begin >>>>>>>>> rolling >>>>>>>>> out to 1% stable next week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dylan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:07 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey all, quick update. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We intend to roll out the feature in gradual increments starting >>>>>>>>> January 10, 2023; and expect to reach 5% of Chrome instances on >>>>>>>>> January 24, >>>>>>>>> 2023 and stay there for a couple of weeks. Once we are satisfied that >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is no regression in metrics/behavior, we will proceed with the >>>>>>>>> rollout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:55 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGTM3 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:24 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGTM2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:43 AM Johann Hofmann < >>>>>>>>> joha...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:37 PM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>>> chri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:34 AM 'Johann Hofmann' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Yoav, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:57 PM 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Contact emails: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dylan...@google.com, kaust...@google.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proposal repository: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Design doc: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wL2lCXpaVOi0cWOn_ehfLFIZQxT3t0SH-ANnZYPEB0I/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Specification: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cutler-httpbis-partitioned-cookies/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you expand on the plans for this I-D? Have y'all talked to the >>>>>>>>> HTTPWG? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, this is being discussed in HTTPWG. Dylan presented CHIPS at >>>>>>>>> IETF 115, minutes are here: >>>>>>>>> https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf115/minutes.html#cookies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great. Were there any concerns raised there that might create a >>>>>>>>> risk for CHIPS? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not as far as I'm aware of. I couldn't attend the meeting in >>>>>>>>> person, but revisited it with the team. From what I was told the main >>>>>>>>> discussion point was whether we shouldn't just partition all 3P >>>>>>>>> cookies by >>>>>>>>> default instead of giving developers the ability to decide. It's a >>>>>>>>> valid >>>>>>>>> question, but one that has been extensively discussed between browser >>>>>>>>> vendors in Privacy CG, and both Safari and Chrome have made it clear >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> they strongly prefer blocking 3P cookies by default (with Firefox not >>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>> opposed to that). We'll of course keep on engaging with these >>>>>>>>> concerns and >>>>>>>>> questions in HTTPWG, but it seems like a decision that ultimately >>>>>>>>> browsers >>>>>>>>> should have the most authority on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, I don't think that this discussion presents any >>>>>>>>> compat risk for CHIPS, as the Partitioned attribute would be >>>>>>>>> compatible >>>>>>>>> with a hypothetical partition-by-default future (i.e. by being a >>>>>>>>> no-op). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the details! :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One important thing to note is that the HTML/Fetch <-> Cookies >>>>>>>>> spec interfaces aren't well defined at the moment, which also affects >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> specs that deal with cookie changes such as the Storage Access API. >>>>>>>>> We're >>>>>>>>> working on fixing this in a larger effort called "cookie layering" >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2084>, which is >>>>>>>>> intended to give Fetch some more responsibility in providing the >>>>>>>>> information that is used to select cookies from the cookie store. >>>>>>>>> This way >>>>>>>>> we can actually access concepts like "top-level site" at the right >>>>>>>>> implementation layer. So, in the mid-term, parts of CHIPS will likely >>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>> up back in HTML and Fetch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, like for SameSite, the RFC will hand-wave some of >>>>>>>>> the browser bits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Summary: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given that Chrome plans to deprecate unpartitioned third-party >>>>>>>>> cookies, we want to give developers the ability to use cookies in >>>>>>>>> cross-site contexts that are partitioned by top-level site to meet >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>> <https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/chips/#use-cases> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that don't track users cross-site (e.g. SaaS embeds, headless CMS, >>>>>>>>> sandbox >>>>>>>>> domains, etc.). Chrome will introduce a mechanism to opt into having >>>>>>>>> third-party cookies partitioned by top-level site using a new cookie >>>>>>>>> attribute, Partitioned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since we announced our Intent to Experiment >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/OXzFi_6wAwAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> with CHIPS, there have been some changes to the API: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Partitioned attribute no longer requires >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/pull/46> the __Host- >>>>>>>>> prefix or its required attributes. The Secure requirement remains. >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are changing the per-partition-per-domain limit to be based >>>>>>>>> on the total size (in bytes) of the cookies set by a domain in a >>>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>> partition in addition to the number of cookies. We intend >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/48#issuecomment-1264126065> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to impose a limit of 10 KB per-embedded-site, per-top-level-site >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> increase the numeric limit from 10 to 180. >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For sites embedded in top-level domains that are in a First-Party >>>>>>>>> Set <https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets>, their cookies' >>>>>>>>> partition key will no longer be the owner domain of that set. >>>>>>>>> Rather, the >>>>>>>>> partition key will always be the top-level domain that the cookie >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> created on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Blink component: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internals>Network>Cookies >>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ECookies> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TAG review: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/654 (Supportive >>>>>>>>> early review) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/779 (Oct 19 >>>>>>>>> specification review) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Firefox: Positive >>>>>>>>> <https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#chips> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WebKit: Supported incubation >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/proposals/issues/30#issuecomment-1113257336>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Official position pending >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/50> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Web developers: Developers have indicated that CHIPS does solve >>>>>>>>> for many use cases that depend on access to cookies in cross-site >>>>>>>>> contexts ( >>>>>>>>> 1 <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/8>, 2 >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/30#issuecomment-1104225686>, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>> <https://triplelift.com/privacy-hub/w3c-proposals-explained-privacy-with-a-side-of-chips/>). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Through incubation, and the Origin Trial, we received feedback to >>>>>>>>> improve >>>>>>>>> ease-of-use, particularly to allow for easier migration of existing >>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>> to use CHIPS. We believe we have satisfactorily resolved these >>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>> (see changes made listed under Summary section). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other signals: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ergonomics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> N/A >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Activation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This feature introduces a new cookie attribute, Partitioned, which >>>>>>>>> is opt-in only. Sites which do not set their cookies with Partitioned >>>>>>>>> should not see any change in the browser's behavior when we ship. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See S&P questionnaire for TAG >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/blob/main/TAG-S%26P-questionnaire.md> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WebView application risks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, >>>>>>>>> such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based >>>>>>>>> applications? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This feature does not deprecate or change behavior of existing >>>>>>>>> APIs. This feature is behind a killswitch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this feature covered by web platform tests? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/cookies/partitioned-cookies> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Flag name >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> partitioned-cookies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tracking bug: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://crbug.com/1225444 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Non-OSS dependencies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium >>>>>>>>> open source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not anymore than cookies already do now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop last >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 106 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop first >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 100 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android last >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 106 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android first >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 100 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web >>>>>>>>> compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to >>>>>>>>> known >>>>>>>>> github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose >>>>>>>>> resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to >>>>>>>>> naming >>>>>>>>> or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> List of open issues: https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chrome Platform Status page: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5179189105786880 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Intent to Prototype: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hvMJ33kqHRo/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/YqP09XbbAgAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/kZRtetS8jsY/m/ppK4kDbqAwAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/MKQODOL0Fso/m/nZXI2dqwAQAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%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 blink-dev+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f1738241-a963-40ce-9b0b-4b52b0aca491n%40chromium.org.
