On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:40 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 15:13, Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> I am happy with the spec progress here and don't think it's a significant >> blocker for the Intent at this point. >> >> On the tests and implementation: >> >> - I found >> performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js >> >> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-navigation-failure.tentative.window.js> >> which seems like it needs to be updated from "error-document" to >> "navigation-failure". That's worth looking into in case it means the >> implementation is also not yet updated. >> - I also found that the Chromium test directory is full of >> -expected.txt files >> >> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/abort-block-bfcache.window-expected.txt?q=NotRestoredReasonDetails&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc&start=21>, >> which seem to match up with the failures on wpt.fyi >> >> <https://wpt.fyi/results/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&q=performance-timeline%2Fnot-restored-reasons>. >> Will those be addressed before shipping? >> - I found a nonstandard toJSON() in NotRestoredReasonDetails >> >> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/not_restored_reasons.idl;l=12;drc=6211b1c8268b239694bd84d7a99e508a15dc6dea> >> in >> Chromium. Was the intent to specify that? >> - Can you confirm that Chromium does not plan to ship any nonstandard >> not restored reason strings, beyond the specified "fetch", >> "navigation-failure", "parser-aborted", "websocket", "lock", and "masked"? >> >> I don't know specifically what is there right now but I would expect that > we will ship others. E.g. BroadcastChannel blocks BFCache on Chrome and > Mozilla but not WebKit and there is currently disagreement. Why would it be > better to show "masked" for that case? > The idea is to follow the standards and not ship nonstandard behavior. The current spec PR actually only allows sending "masked" in the cross-origin case, and doesn't allow sending it for BroadcastChannel. If the intention is to send some value in the BroadcastChannel case (which is this part of the spec <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#document-state:~:text=User%20agents%20may,keeping%20it%20cached.>) then that needs to be specified in the spec PR before shipping such a value in Chromium. > > F > > > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 5:38 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> This is now ready to ship, now that we have all the approvals on the >>> ChromeStatus >>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600?gate=6535221965488128>and >>> the spec draft <https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360> is close to >>> agreement. >>> >>> Can you please take a look at this again? >>> Thanks! >>> >>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:00:51 AM UTC+9 Chris Harrelson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Please also make sure to complete all of the other shipping gate >>>> reviews >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bqvB1oap0Yc/m/YlO8DEHgAQAJ> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < >>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds good, I will create a list on the explainer >>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md> >>>>> for the "may block" reasons then. >>>>> >>>>> Re: exposing NotRestoredReasons interface instead of object in idl: >>>>> I'm working on the implementation in this CL >>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4770594>. >>>>> This might be a basic question, but is there any difference on how to >>>>> call the API from users' perspective, when the exposed attribute is an >>>>> interface vs object? >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:06:49 AM UTC+9 dom...@chromium.org >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola <dom...@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the >>>>>>>> linked issue >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2>, I >>>>>>>> think the end goal should be: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a >>>>>>>> specification somewhere. (It doesn't have to be the HTML spec, e.g. >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> speech synthesis reason could live in the speech synthesis spec.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's no intrinsic reason for speech synthesis to block BFCache. >>>>>>> It just happens that Chrome blocked it. There's no spec reason for >>>>>>> unload >>>>>>> to block BFCache, in fact the spec says that it doesn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's good for us to have agreed names, e.g. >>>>>>> "unload-event-handler". Should we put into various specs "if an >>>>>>> implementer >>>>>>> chooses to block BFCache because X has been used, they should use the >>>>>>> reason `Y`"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - If browsers prevent bfcache restoration for a reason not >>>>>>>> found in a spec, it is always translated to a standardized reason >>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>> "unknown". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This avoids the usual interop problems with vendor-specific >>>>>>>> extensions to the web platform, such as: no clear specification for >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> strings to use; no clear point at which the reason is added to the >>>>>>>> document's reasons list; etc. Although you claim these reasons are >>>>>>>> idiosyncratic to Chrome, that won't necessarily be the case; e.g. >>>>>>>> Firefox >>>>>>>> has unload handler as a reason, and I suspect most user agents have >>>>>>>> memory >>>>>>>> limitations or similar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chrome has over 100 reasons. I'd say at least 50 of them are >>>>>>> actionable such that you wouldn't want to lump them into an opaque >>>>>>> "unknown" category. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not relish the idea of updating 50 places in spec to insert a >>>>>>> name to be used if you decide to block. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about maintaining a central list of reasons with low friction to >>>>>>> add new reasons even if they are browser-specific? The cases where you >>>>>>> *must* block should still be inline in spec (and also on the list), >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That sounds great to me. We should probably make this separation >>>>>> clear in the spec, e.g. the "must" list will have cross-references you >>>>>> can >>>>>> follow, whereas the "may" list ends up only being cross-referenced from >>>>>> some generic location like >>>>>> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#note-bfcache:~:text=User%20agents%20may,keeping%20it%20cached. >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> F >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could have a discussion about allowing vendor-specific >>>>>>>> information in the API *in addition* to the standardized reasons. >>>>>>>> For example, we could have one of the standardized reasons be >>>>>>>> "user-agent-specific", and then add an additional field >>>>>>>> userAgentSpecificInfo. But I would like to see significantly more >>>>>>>> discussion with other vendors before going that route. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM Yuzu Saijo <yu...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +bfcache-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was talking to Fergal today and discussed this, and I am not >>>>>>>>> sure about adding browser-specific reasons to the spec. >>>>>>>>> For example, some reasons like "speech synthesis API is used" / >>>>>>>>> "unload handler" are completely specific to Chrome, and it doesn't >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> make sense to add them to the spec, even with the namespace >>>>>>>>> (x-speechsysthesis / x-unloadhandler). >>>>>>>>> Maybe we can document the reasons somewhere in a shared list but >>>>>>>>> not in the spec? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the API would be more useful if it can give as much >>>>>>>>> information as possible, not limited to the specced reasons. >>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:39:17 PM UTC+9 Yuzu Saijo wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *> there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons interface >>>>>>>>>> defined in Chromium?* >>>>>>>>>> Let me address this implementation and delay the shipping until >>>>>>>>>> the chromium implementation matches the proposed spec. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>> pointing >>>>>>>>>> it out! >>>>>>>>>> Same for WPT. I will add tests for all the standardized reasons. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *> Can you confirm that you're only shipping the specified four?* >>>>>>>>>> We do have ~50 not restored reasons, and in theory we will be >>>>>>>>>> able to remove most of them except for the standardized four reasons. >>>>>>>>>> However, in reality it will take time for us to support all the >>>>>>>>>> reasons and we need to keep blocking on them for a while. >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, our plan was to expose the non-standardized >>>>>>>>>> reasons too, but in a way that's distinguishable from standardized >>>>>>>>>> reasons as >>>>>>>>>> you suggested here >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/issues/2>. >>>>>>>>>> I realized that we need to add browser specific reasons to the >>>>>>>>>> spec as well. Let me add that and send a review request again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>> Yuzu >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:07:05 PM UTC+9 >>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, checking the tests, it seems like the >>>>>>>>>>> currently-implemented reasons don't match the spec. E.g. this >>>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/performance-navigation-timing-bfcache-reasons-stay.tentative.window.js> >>>>>>>>>>> requires >>>>>>>>>>> the reason to be "WebSocket", but the specification says "websocket" >>>>>>>>>>> (lowercase). I couldn't find tests for the other three reasons... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:04 PM Domenic Denicola < >>>>>>>>>>> dom...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have some questions about how well the implementation here >>>>>>>>>>>> matches up with the spec. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First, there doesn't appear to be any NotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>> interface defined in Chromium? The relevant attribute on >>>>>>>>>>>> PerformanceNavigationTiming returns object? >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/timing/performance_navigation_timing.idl;l=33?q=NotRestoredReasons%20file:%5C.idl&ss=chromium>. >>>>>>>>>>>> That seems like a problematic mismatch... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Second, I can't find exactly where the list of script-exposed >>>>>>>>>>>> not restored reasons are. But, I'll note that Chromium seems >>>>>>>>>>>> to have ~50 such reasons >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main:content/browser/renderer_host/back_forward_cache_metrics.h;drc=6754d1409bf5099314eea7e87e896622ade9bc0f;l=49>, >>>>>>>>>>>> whereas you've only specified 4 (fetch, navigation-failure, >>>>>>>>>>>> parser-aborted, >>>>>>>>>>>> websocket). Can you confirm that you're only shipping the >>>>>>>>>>>> specified four? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:11 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>> yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:28 AM 'Yuzu Saijo' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yu...@google.com, yu...@chromium.org, fer...@chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Design docs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReason API will report the list of reasons why a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> page is not served from BFcache in a frame tree structure, via >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PerformanceNavigationTiming API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UI>Browser>Navigation>BFCache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:UI%3EBrowser%3ENavigation%3EBFCache> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/739 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Issues addressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko: Defer ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/766) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once issues (standardized reasons & unsalvageable documents), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch to positive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the "standardized reasons" part is addressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>> your PR. Is the same true for the second point? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit: No signal ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/154) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: Positive ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/navigation-timing/issues/171#issuecomment-1062672989 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other signals: Positive from Origin Trial users: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How likely are you to keep using this feature? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 92% answered likely, 8% (1 vote) is unsure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do not report detailed information about cross-origin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iframes. See Security and Privacy section >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/bfcache-not-restored-reason/blob/main/NotRestoredReason.md#security-and-privacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the explainer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In DevTools console, try: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].notRestoredReasons; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NotRestoredReasons API is available on all platforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including WebView, but back/forward cache is not enabled on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView. So on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebView, NotRestoredReasons API should always say that the page >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from being restored from bfcache with the reason being something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like “not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Currently it reports null due to a bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1459533> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/performance-timeline/not-restored-reasons/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/rubberyuzu/bfcache-not-retored-reason/blob/main/HowToTest.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flag nameblink RunTimeEnabledFeature: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/platform/runtime_enabled_features.json5;l=423?q=BackForwardCacheSendNotRestoredReasons%20-f:out&ss=chromium> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1326344 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4200848 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial desktop first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on desktop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial Android first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on Android >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shipping on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OriginTrial WebView first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTrial on WebView >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 108 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compat or interop issues. Please list open issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9360 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5684908759449600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to prototype: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoGAzjUjzv3WmxcRpUSBgnA-AHQ05kh9gXc%2BQB8pRM6%2BfA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHe391sAB2PdbEVw9uiSPFxTB_EYsRizcPpZ7-pg16O0A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAA5e698QcKZSthm%3Dz_4pi8cOzi4kfbx-AXveC%2BAKimUh-tMycA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-nMoHYpT3sxWV%2BEipL5NcNSWy8fOdDdAroucmNb%3DZvxJWRBA%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/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXtkH6O82W%2BWm9ckCyYasSJt2cbs9VA4VZAmYhtivgj4g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "bfcache-dev" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to bfcache-dev...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web, visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/bfcache-dev/CAM0wra-P3NxELP28%3Dgh%3D3ROC35m8ijS_5RRcStyjFew1AXNyEg%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/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%40chromium.org >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/43e32f0e-454e-4525-b317-cbe492e2f23bn%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 blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAM0wra9jkv7eF0VtSEMDbKZ0AOoPgYd4dkmYB5Z%3D2HYjKrjDQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
