On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 12:51 PM Fergal Daly <fer...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 12:26, Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> 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. >> > > BFCaching is never required by spec. That means any browser can block > BFCache at any time, for any reason and still be in spec. > Yes. But a browser cannot create values for the NotRestoredReasonDetails's reason property which are not in the spec, while staying spec-compliant. This is similar to how we cannot have, e.g., DOMException's name property returning arbitrary values; we instead document them all in the spec <https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#idl-DOMException-error-names>, and then document that some of them may be thrown in implementation-specific circumstances (example <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#killing-scripts>). > > I think what's missing is that said we would maintain a registry of > reasons that were not in the spec so that when we block for unspecced > reasons, we don't proliferate a bunch of undocumented names. > > I'm not sure how to express that in the spec, > We discussed how to do so upthread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/bfcache-dev/c/ufQx6r6su6U/m/vyQM9nGHAwAJ > > F > > >> >> >>> >>> 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/CAM0wra9ryR1uzAVEXFDWLN6a64PeKiwjvdLPeRWpP6gyr-BbPA%40mail.gmail.com.
