Hi everyone, Thanks for the feedback. Here are my responses:
1. An origin trial will allow Web developers to opt out of freezing. In addition to provide a quick way to prevent breakages, it will help us identify background use cases that might need dedicated APIs for support. 2. A blog post documenting the freezing policy and the origin trial will be published before the stable experiment. 3. I'm okay with adjusting the release schedule (e.g., "<10% in 133, 100% in 134") to help enterprise admins diagnose issues. 4. We'll track usage of the "Always keep these sites active" list in chrome://settings/performance. If usage increases significantly with freezing, we'll investigate and adjust accordingly. This list should be helpful to users with rare use cases, not a common solution. 5. Mail/chat/calendar apps shouldn't be affected, as the "high CPU usage" threshold will be significantly higher than their normal usage. If necessary, they can use the origin trial opt-out (short-term) or the Progress API <https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/progress-notification> (long-term) to declare CPU intensive workloads and avoid being frozen. They can also use the Push API to deliver notifications even when they aren't loaded, are crashed or are frozen (we're interested to learn about any hurdles preventing apps from adopting the Push API). 6. Tabs with notification permission will be opted out of freezing initially. We aim to remove this opt-out eventually, as notifications typically don't require high CPU usage. For high CPU needs, the origin trial (short-term) or the Progress API <https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/progress-notification> (long-term) are preferred solutions. 7. Pages with active WebRTC connections will be opted out, so videoconferencing apps will continue working, even if they don't capture from the camera/microphone/screen. No opt-out is planned for WebSockets or Web Transport, as they don't usually indicate CPU-intensive background functionality. The origin trial or Progress API can be used to avoid freezing despite running CPU-intensive workloads. A note on the Progress API <https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/progress-notification>: We want the Progress API to be a good way for pages to declare their need for background resources (CPU/network) when other APIs (WebRTC, audio playback, Web USB, etc.) don't apply. It will be tied to UI (TBD) so that users remain in control. Besides opting out of freezing, usage of the API can increase CPU/network priority. We know some pages need background resources without having progress information (e.g., stock market dashboards, cryptocurrency miners). We'll ensure the Progress API (which might be renamed) covers these cases. Have a nice day, François On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-5 Alex Russell wrote: > Presumably we would want to treat Web Transport the same way as Web > Sockets here, whatever we decide? > > On Sunday, December 8, 2024 at 12:20:50 PM UTC-8 philipp...@googlemail.com > wrote: > >> what about WebSockets? Wondering about video conferencing websites that >> use Websockets as signaling transport to establish a WebRTC connection but >> do not open camera/microphone or the underlying connection until that is >> necessary. >> (I do not expect such applications to use a lot of CPU in that state so >> might be fine) >> >> Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2024 um 06:34 Uhr schrieb Daniel Bratell < >> brat...@gmail.com>: >> > Before "notifications" have been used as a signal of a page that wants to >>> run in the background. I didn't see it listed here. The other use case that >>> has been mentioned in similar threads is stock market applications which >>> seem to both want to run in the background and do non-trivial work of some >>> kind. >>> >>> As for possible pitfalls I do wonder what happens on very slow or >>> throttled computers where any work at all will be interpreted as "high cpu >>> usage". >>> >>> But I think this overall is a very reasonable feature for a browser. >>> There will be challenges in, tuning, UI and user communication, but nothing >>> that I consider a feature blocker. >>> >>> LGTM2 >>> >>> /Daniel >>> On 2024-12-04 03:45, Vladimir Levin wrote: >>> >> You've mentioned things like mail/calendar should still work. Is this >>> because the expected background CPU usage is low or is it that it's using >>> some API that directly opts it out of the freezing behavior? I'm >>> particularly worried about things like calendar that don't _typically_ need >>> to do any work, but _occasionally_ want to show a notification that you >>> have an upcoming meeting. If there happens to be some background work >>> happening in those that causes it to be frozen, that seems like it could be >>> a hard to discover problem (due to the fact that it maybe only occasionally >>> uses too much CPU) and quite painful for the user. In general, any site >>> that can do background work and notifies the user via notifications seems >>> like it could be problematic >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vlad >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:38 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> LGTM1 to ship including a deprecation trial >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024, 5:00 p.m. François Doray <fdo...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, November 29, 2024 at 3:13:39 PM UTC-5 Rick Byers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> tl;dr: Just one remaining question about providing a developer opt-out >>>>> (like a deprecation trial). >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 12:25 PM Francois Pierre Doray < >>>>> fdo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rick, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for raising your concerns regarding troubleshooting issues >>>>> caused by Tab Freezing on Energy Saver. >>>>> >>>>> > Does Chrome have any visual indication that a tab has been frozen? >>>>> There is no indication that a tab is frozen. However, the feature only >>>>> operates when Energy Saver is active, signaled by a leaf icon next to the >>>>> omnibox. When Energy Saver is first activated or when the leaf icon is >>>>> clicked, a bubble indicates that "Background activity and some visual >>>>> effects may be limited". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah cool, I had never noticed that before myself. I see there's also a >>>>> prominent "turn off now" button: >>>>> >>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>> >>>>> That seems like a significant mitigation to me. If someone is having >>>>> trouble with some site it seems like there's a decent chance that they >>>>> (or >>>>> their IT support people) would notice this indicator, click it, then >>>>> click >>>>> "turn off now" and confirm that fixes the issue. From there I'd imagine >>>>> troubleshooting would be pretty easy (google searches for "chrome energy >>>>> saver" would point to the per-site opt-out etc.) >>>>> >>>>> We avoided a frozen tab indicator because in the long term (2-3 >>>>> years), we plan to freeze most background tabs, to ensure that they don't >>>>> steal resources from the foreground tab. At that point, there will be a >>>>> visual indication for tabs that are *not* frozen (e.g. playing audio >>>>> = speaker icon, using the progress notification API >>>>> <https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/progress-notification> to >>>>> do arbitrary work = UI TBD). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I love that long-term plan, thanks! Personally I'd love to have a mode >>>>> where pages get to run in the background only if they show such an icon >>>>> or >>>>> in response to me granting their origin that permission. That's not >>>>> behind >>>>> a flag or anything yet, right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Pages get to run in the background only if [they show some UI]" : In >>>>> 2-3 years, we'd like this to be the default behavior, due to the expected >>>>> foreground tab speed up and battery savings. It's not yet behind a flag. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > How discoverable is it for users that they can add a site to an >>>>> exclusion list? >>>>> >>>>> Users can add sites to the exclusion list via the "Performance" tab in >>>>> Chrome settings (direct link: chrome://settings/performance), under >>>>> "Always keep these sites active." This is also mentioned in the help >>>>> article <https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/12929150> (will be >>>>> updated for this launch). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah I saw that, and I like that the UI contains a "current sites" >>>>> list rather than requiring copying URLs. But that alone certainly is not >>>>> discoverable for a user who simply has a broken web page and doesn't know >>>>> why. But given that disabling energy saver is very discoverable, that's >>>>> good enough for me as long as this is coupled just to energy saver. I >>>>> guess >>>>> you won't really have a way to measure how much site compat issues lead >>>>> users to disable energy saver, eh? I imagine most users disabling it will >>>>> do so for the performance / visual quality concerns, not site compat >>>>> reasons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We could run a HaTS survey to understand what leads users to add sites >>>>> to the exclusion list. Let me know what you think and I can prioritize >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not important for the launch process, so up to you. Not needed >>>> from my perspective. >>>> >>>> While discoverability is limited, most users won't need this feature. >>>>> Typical mail/chat/calendar/phone/drive/music >>>>> streaming/videoconferencing/... apps will either not exceed the CPU >>>>> threshold for freezing or be opted out via API usage. Sites requiring >>>>> high >>>>> background CPU usage under Energy Saver (outside of audio/video calls, >>>>> device control...) can direct users to the Chrome settings page or >>>>> recommend using this policy >>>>> <https://chromeenterprise.google/intl/en_ca/policies/#TabDiscardingExceptions> >>>>> to >>>>> enterprise admins (policy doc will be updated for this launch). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes I'm definitely convinced that "most" (probably even >99.99%) of >>>>> users won't have a problem - your design is great for that, thank you! >>>>> But >>>>> what I've learned from my incident post-mortem responsibilities is that >>>>> it's the ~0.0001% of users that we have to really focus on to reduce the >>>>> risk of most OMGs. Ask Robert about why I'm afraid of his wrath around >>>>> this >>>>> next time you see him in the office :-). >>>>> >>>>> Realistically I'd expect most such sites to just hack in some API >>>>> usage that tickles your heuristic (like take an IndexedDB lock just for >>>>> the >>>>> purposes of being kept alive). That 's going to be much more effective >>>>> for >>>>> them than trying to direct users to take some manual steps, right? That >>>>> seems unfortunate to me, as it will make your life harder in driving down >>>>> the exceptions. Experience with this sort of thing is a big part of the >>>>> motivation behind our guidance >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.glc7fyugcipe> >>>>> >>>>> for providing explicit developer opt-outs for breaking changes >>>>> (especially >>>>> interventions like this). Sure, there is some risk of an explicit opt-out >>>>> being abused but that risk isn't necessarily any greater than abuse of >>>>> your >>>>> heuristic, and at least you can more easily measure and track it and >>>>> update >>>>> behavior as necessary for any "arms race" with abusive sites. Have you >>>>> considered offering developers a deprecation trial >>>>> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#deprecation-trial> to >>>>> reduce the risk of them abusing your heuristics and get you contact info >>>>> for the developers who feel they must opt-out? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hadn't considered a deprecation trial, but I think it's a good idea >>>>> to reduce the risk of Web developers abusing our heuristics. In terms of >>>>> process, should I create a "Feature removal" entry at chromestatus.com >>>>> or can we handle this as part of this intent? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Great! Yeah we can just use this intent, no need for extra overhead. >>>> And of course it's important to document how to use the trial in the blog >>>> post. >>>> >>>> >>>>> We think that requiring some effort to allow high background CPU usage >>>>> under Energy Saver is reasonable, as it can significantly impact battery >>>>> life and contradicts Energy Saver's purpose (note: Energy Saver is only >>>>> available on battery power, activates when battery level is below 20% by >>>>> default). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that most impacted users would simply disable energy saver >>>>> completely rather than make the extra effort to discover and use the >>>>> site-specific opt-out. But that's fine - both settings aren't hard to >>>>> find, >>>>> and if you see a lot of users disabling energy saver then you can do some >>>>> research to see if better per-site controls might help reduce that >>>>> (though >>>>> we might be stuck for the users who have already opted out completely). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "though we might be stuck for the users who have already opted out >>>>> completely": If we observe any significant difference in the number of >>>>> Energy Saver activations between the Control/Enabled groups, or if we >>>>> observe an upward trend of users without Energy Saver after the launch, >>>>> we'll investigate why and make adjustments. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh of course, that makes sense - thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>>> > Is the plan for Chrome 133 to be fully at 100%, with 132 still well >>>>> below that? >>>>> The plan is to experiment on 1% of stable users in Chrome 133 and then >>>>> ramp up gradually as we gain confidence that the feature is well tuned. >>>>> The >>>>> feature is already under experimentation in Canary/Dev. We intend to >>>>> expand Tab Freezing beyond Energy Saver in the future, taking into >>>>> account >>>>> lessons learned from this limited scope launch, but that will be handled >>>>> under new Intents. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok, we've come to appreciate that that pattern increases the risk >>>>> somewhat because it makes it even harder for IT admins and support >>>>> personnel to reproduce and action site compat issues their users are >>>>> complaining about. I don't think we've yet come up with some >>>>> well-informed >>>>> guidance for mitigating this risk, so I won't ask for something different >>>>> (eg. could keep to <10% in 133 and then go 100% in 134). But it's >>>>> something >>>>> to keep an eye out for in customer reports and perhaps inform our future >>>>> guidance, so please let me know (here or privately) if it ends up showing >>>>> up as an issue in customer reports or not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Will the blog post you mentioned be published prior to 133 beta (Jan >>>>> 15)? >>>>> That's the goal, though DevRel hasn't confirmed a date. I'll check in >>>>> with them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok, thanks. If the blog post gets delayed, please hold off on >>>>> extending the experiment to stable until the blog post is live. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have a nice day, >>>>> >>>>> François >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 at 10:20:09 AM UTC-5 Rick Byers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I evaluated this intent relative to our compat principles >>>>> <https://bit.ly/blink-compat> and overall think you've done an >>>>> excellent job mitigating the compat risks. In particular the user >>>>> controls, >>>>> developer-influencable heuristics and enterprise opt-out seem likely to >>>>> be >>>>> significant mitigations. I'm also confident that you will be proactive in >>>>> monitoring for issues and being responsive to feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Heuristics like the energy saver and CPU threshold seem great to me on >>>>> balance, but I'm also nervous that they will make troubleshooting rare >>>>> but >>>>> severe issues harder (especially since these signals can't really be >>>>> monitored via web page telemetry). We've learned from one recent incident >>>>> that sometimes the rarest incidents can be extremely bad - eg. causing a >>>>> serious business disruption for one single organization but not more >>>>> widely >>>>> (making support for that organization much harder). In such cases, >>>>> discoverability and understandability of the issue (including by skilled >>>>> IT >>>>> support personnel) is key to avoiding extended outages. With that in >>>>> mind, >>>>> I have a couple questions: >>>>> >>>>> Does Chrome have any visual indication that a tab has been frozen? How >>>>> discoverable is it for users that they can add a site to an exclusion >>>>> list? >>>>> >>>>> Is the plan for Chrome 133 to be fully at 100%, with 132 still well >>>>> below that? I'm just wondering to what extent someone looking into >>>>> website >>>>> logs for an issue will be able to detect a clear correlation with Chrome >>>>> 133 (increasing the chance that they reach out to us or find this >>>>> mentioned >>>>> in the chrome 133 blog post)? >>>>> >>>>> Will the blog post you mentioned be published prior to 133 beta (Jan >>>>> 15)? I see it's mentioned >>>>> <https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7679408?hl=en&co=CHROME_ENTERPRISE._Product%3DChromeBrowser#top:~:text=131%20on%20Android-,Tab%20freezing%20on%20Energy%20saver,-When%20Energy%20saver> >>>>> >>>>> in Chrome 131 enterprise release notes already, thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Rick >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 3:11 PM Chromestatus < >>>>> ad...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Contact emails fdo...@chromium.org, shas...@chromium.org >>>>> >>>>> Explainer None >>>>> >>>>> Specification https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle >>>>> >>>>> Design docs >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uTJifh_erMX4_CTKgKljlj9O4SAmGam5W61FBHeasGI/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Summary >>>>> >>>>> When Energy Saver is active, Chrome will freeze a "browsing context >>>>> group" that has been hidden and silent for >5 minutes if any subgroup of >>>>> same-origin frames within it exceeds a CPU usage threshold, unless it: - >>>>> Provides audio- or video-conferencing functionality (detected via >>>>> microphone, camera or screen/window/tab capture or an RTCPeerConnection >>>>> with an 'open' RTCDataChannel or a 'live' MediaStreamTrack). - Controls >>>>> an >>>>> external device (detected via usage of Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web HID or >>>>> Web Serial). - Holds a Web Lock or an IndexedDB connection that blocks a >>>>> version update or a transaction on a different connection. Freezing >>>>> consists of pausing execution. It is formally defined in the Page >>>>> Lifecycle >>>>> API. The CPU usage threshold will be calibrated to freeze approximately >>>>> 10% >>>>> of background tabs when Energy Saver is active. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Blink component Blink>Scheduling >>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EScheduling> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TAG review None >>>>> >>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>> >>>>> Risks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>> >>>>> Interoperability: This feature does not expose new capabilities to the >>>>> Web, so it has low chances of creating situations in which the same >>>>> HTML/CSS/Js/... behaves differently in different browsers. That being >>>>> said, >>>>> we invite other browsers vendors that already shipped "tab freezing" to >>>>> share and discuss their opt-out rules, which will help offer consistent >>>>> behavior for web developers across browsers, avoiding situations where a >>>>> site's background functionality works correctly in some browsers but not >>>>> others. Compatibility: This feature may affect existing sites with >>>>> background functionality. However, breaking some functionality to extend >>>>> battery life is in line with user expectations when "Energy Saver" is >>>>> active. We're interested in Web developer feedback to adjust our opt-outs >>>>> and minimize avoidable breakages. "Energy Saver" can be disabled via the >>>>> the "BatterySaverModeAvailability" enterprise policy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gecko*: Under consideration ( >>>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/87) >>>>> >>>>> *WebKit*: No signal >>>>> >>>>> *Web developers*: No signals In the past, Web developers expressed >>>>> concerns about freezing, because it made it difficult to implement >>>>> background functionality that users care about in a reliable way (e.g. >>>>> notification for calendar event). By freezing only pages that use a lot >>>>> of >>>>> CPU and only when Energy Saver is active, breakages that were reported in >>>>> the past are mitigated. Additionally, we will listen to Web developers >>>>> feedback on multiple channels (crbug, blink-dev, stack overflow, twitter, >>>>> github) and make adjustments to heuristics if we find that background >>>>> functionality that users care about is broken. Users may deactivate >>>>> Energy >>>>> Saver or manually opt-out sites at chrome://settings/performance >>>>> >>>>> *Other signals*: Chrome on Android freezes background tabs after 5 >>>>> minutes ( >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/NKtuFxLsKgo/m/brL3bfS5CAAJ). >>>>> >>>>> Chrome on desktop and Android freezes pages before putting them in the >>>>> BFCache. Chrome on desktop freezes tabs in collapsed tab groups. Edge >>>>> freezes background tabs after a configurable timeout ( >>>>> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/features/sleeping-tabs-at-work?form=MT00D8). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ergonomics >>>>> >>>>> No Ergonomics Risks identified. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Activation >>>>> >>>>> No action is required to support browsers that don't freeze pages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Security >>>>> >>>>> A frame can observe when it is frozen, either directly (via the >>>>> “freeze” event) or indirectly (timer runs later than expected, server >>>>> doesn’t receive a ping…). When the decision to freeze a frame depends on >>>>> observations made on other cross-origin frames (crossing CPU usage >>>>> threshold, using Web API that opt-outs from freezing) there is a risk of >>>>> leaking information across origins. Multiple solutions were considered to >>>>> balance security and ergonomy requirements. We finally landed on >>>>> "freezing >>>>> a browsing context group based on independent observations made on groups >>>>> of same-origin/same-page frames in that browsing context group". Pros & >>>>> cons + All frames on a page are in the same “frozen” state (does not >>>>> break >>>>> Web devs assumptions). + All frames that can synchronously script each >>>>> other are in the same “frozen” state (does not break Web devs >>>>> assumptions). >>>>> + Not aggregating CPU usage across origins minimizes leaks, because an >>>>> attacker can’t vary its own CPU usage to precisely measure the CPU usage >>>>> of >>>>> another origin. - Leaks Web API usage across cross-origin frames (a frame >>>>> can learn that a cross-origin frame in the "browsing context group" uses >>>>> or >>>>> doesn't use one of the APIs that prevents freezing depending on whether >>>>> it >>>>> itself gets frozen). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 is a desktop-only feature which does not affect Webview. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Debuggability >>>>> >>>>> The frozen state of a tab is displayed in the "Lifecycle state" column >>>>> of chrome://discards. Whether a page can be frozen and why (e.g. >>>>> usage of WebRTC) is displayed in the "Is freezable" column of >>>>> chrome://discards. The #freezing-on-energy-saver and >>>>> #freezing-on-energy-saver-testing features at about:flags can be used >>>>> to test this intervention. It is also possible to manually freeze a tab >>>>> via >>>>> chrome://discards to verify how it reacts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>> Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? Yes >>>>> >>>>> Chrome for Android already freezes pages in the background (not tied >>>>> to Energy Saver). This proposal brings freezing to desktop. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>> ? No >>>>> >>>>> Flag name on about://flags freezing-on-energy-saver >>>>> >>>>> Finch feature name FreezingOnBatterySaver >>>>> >>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False >>>>> >>>>> Tracking bug https://crbug.com/325954772 >>>>> >>>>> Launch bug https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4282880 >>>>> >>>>> Measurement This feature doesn't introduce new APIs that web pages >>>>> need to adopt. >>>>> >>>>> Availability expectation This feature doesn't introduce new APIs that >>>>> other browsers need to make available. It expands the sets of conditions >>>>> under which Chrome may freeze tabs (previously, only tabs in collapsed >>>>> tab >>>>> groups could be frozen). >>>>> >>>>> Adoption expectation This feature doesn't introduce new APIs that web >>>>> pages need to adopt. Web pages may listen to the freeze/resume events to >>>>> react to freezing, but it's not an issue if a web page doesn't. These >>>>> events are already dispatched when a tab in a collapsed tab group is >>>>> frozen. >>>>> >>>>> Adoption plan In collaboration with DevRel, we will publish an >>>>> article covering the conditions under which freezing is triggered and >>>>> possible remediations for broken background use cases. >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> No >>>>> >>>>> Estimated milestones Shipping on desktop 133 DevTrial on desktop 132 >>>>> >>>>> 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). >>>>> This feature does not modify the spec. It changes the conditions under >>>>> which tabs are frozen in Chrome. Those conditions are expected to evolve >>>>> over time. >>>>> >>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5158599457767424?gate=5076873410772992 >>>>> >>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions Intent to Prototype: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG9b2qVcRLRWXUz61AkRWi%2BkaOJwgUK8bNCRBG6LOpqgOd%2BvSw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> Ready for Trial: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Xu1C7WhoGm4/m/_9U_kLHDAwAJ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/67462b62.2b0a0220.19a388.0546.GAE%40google.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/67462b62.2b0a0220.19a388.0546.GAE%40google.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 visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY9fhohUewpp%3D_eeMcWEbQtZvBvLDNnnPT6eSAbdwxq8uA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY9fhohUewpp%3D_eeMcWEbQtZvBvLDNnnPT6eSAbdwxq8uA%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 visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2P1o1wBfdum060TnNmotmxoCFr0fEqKjjzUg%2BaepNijkw%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADsXd2P1o1wBfdum060TnNmotmxoCFr0fEqKjjzUg%2BaepNijkw%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 visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4086d432-7397-4bc5-9ba8-40f783428cf8%40gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/4086d432-7397-4bc5-9ba8-40f783428cf8%40gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/aab4809b-1c18-4c40-ae99-003ab916c0b8n%40chromium.org.
