LGTM3, thanks for all the work here to meet our shipping requirements! Can you update ChromeStatus with the new spec draft and explainer links, as well as the feedback from Workspace?
On Saturday, March 1, 2025 at 5:03:52 AM UTC+9 Rick Byers wrote: > Thank you for the extra effort here Marja! > I agree with Mike, the "next step" is to ship it. LGTM2. > > Then of course we should keep iterating and documenting how it provides > real user & developer value. If another engine decides they want the value > too then we can figure out what the right standardization venue is. Thank > you for discussing it in TC39 and WebPerf WG! > > Rick > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 2:57 PM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> LGTM1 >> On 2/28/25 7:28 AM, Marja Hölttä wrote: >> >> Hi again, all, >> >> Update: >> - I gave an info session about Explicit compile hints in TC39 in October. >> - The explainer and the spec draft are now under WICG: >> https://github.com/WICG/explicit-javascript-compile-hints-file-based & >> https://wicg.github.io/explicit-javascript-compile-hints-file-based/ >> - I updated the format based on feedback from other browsers (minor >> naming update, doesn't affect the functionality) >> - We ran another Origin Trial with Workspace, comparing different >> implementations of the feature, and decided which one we want to ship. >> (However, the exact implementation can be modified without any >> compatibility issues, since this is just performance tuning.) >> - I proposed the feature (verbally) to the Web Perf WG in the last >> meeting (Feb 26th). >> - I requested the rest of the reviews (Privacy, Security, Debugging etc.) >> in Chromestatus (still in progress). >> - The feedback from Workspace (from the first Origin Trial) is available >> at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_dt6SMGoxomo8mJuPqFBIP85kUII3CgqUuqqwKWRZOc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> . >> >> To answer what Rick asked above: >> If we want to change the format, we can indeed do a transition where we >> support both "old" and "new" formats for a while. A user-side transition is >> possible, too: a web page can ship "old compile hints" and "new compile >> hints" and old browser versions will pick up the old one and ignore the new >> one, and new browser versions will do the opposite. >> >> Could you advise us on the next steps? Thanks in advance! >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 10:53 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < >> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for sending over the WICG proposal >>> <https://github.com/WICG/proposals/issues/174> for this! I think >>> there's now enough evidence of industry interest in this. That should >>> enable y'all to move this to the WICG as a venue, which would resolve the >>> IPR concerns. >>> >>> On Friday, October 4, 2024 at 4:34:16 PM UTC+2 Rick Byers wrote: >>> >>> The main reason I'm personally gung-ho on shipping this is that, as far >>> as I can tell, it has extremely low interoperability and compatibility >>> risk. This is just metadata that influences performance heuristics and >>> (despite some risk) all browsers tweak performance heuristics all the time >>> without necessarily having any public / transparent process for doing so. >>> Even in the case of developer-influenced heuristics like PIFE, is there any >>> precedent for following a standards track? This proposal seems strictly >>> better in that regard in terms of plausibly becoming on a standards track >>> someday as interest grows, so taking a step in that direction seems like a >>> net positive to me. Marja, can you confirm that, should we get feedback >>> later for adjusting the syntax and other details, we can easily change our >>> implementation after shipping? Worst case we support both old and new >>> formats for ~2 milestones while partners who really care about the perf >>> wins they're seeing update, right? >>> >>> Of course I agree that if we can meet the bar now for getting this into >>> an IPR-protected venue, then absolutely we should. I know we've reached out >>> to some non-Google developers to gauge interest and haven't yet found >>> anyone interested in experimenting. It's good to poke on that a little more >>> (eg. maybe this >>> <https://twitter.com/RickByers/status/1842204146687934513> will turn up >>> someone in the web perf community), but I don't think we should block >>> indefinitely on it as long as we have evidence of clear user-benefit. >>> >>> So in terms of demonstrating the benefit, Marja what data can you share >>> about performance improvements that you've seen from properties who have >>> tested this? From all our work on performance of native applications (like >>> Chrome), I think it should be pretty obvious that PGO can lead to >>> meaningful user-observable performance wins, but I do agree that we should >>> be able to characterize those wins in a concrete public setting before >>> shipping. >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 9:12 AM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/4/24 1:56 AM, 'Marja Hölttä' via blink-dev wrote: >>> >>> miketaylr@: It's very likely that the privacy & security reviews will be >>> very straightforward in comparison to the API owners approval. This is >>> essentially a JavaScript feature (though, not a semantics changing one) so >>> it doesn't have privacy implications. Security-wise, it's much less risky >>> than other V8 features on average, so I don't expect much work to be coming >>> from that direction either. That's why I kicked off the API owner >>> discussion first, since that's the most interesting one. Would it be ok to >>> do the privacy & security reviews only after this discussion has converged? >>> >>> We ask that everyone *request* the various review gates before we give >>> OWNERs approvals - but we don't block on the resolution of said reviews. >>> Also, if you already have internal reviews (which is likely true given that >>> you've already run an Origin Trial), you can just link to the internal >>> launch bug and use the Request N/A button. >>> >>> What Mike said. It's better to kick off these reviews at the start of >>> the I2S, and API owners are unlikely to approve this without those reviews >>> started. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/448934fc-6d9d-4e09-a728- >>> 64bf28201636%40chromium.org >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/448934fc-6d9d-4e09-a728-64bf28201636%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Google Germany GmbH >> >> Erika-Mann-Straße 33 >> >> 80636 München >> >> >> Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Liana Sebastian. >> >> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 >> >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg >> >> >> Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich. Falls sie diese fälschlicherweise erhalten >> haben sollten, leiten Sie diese bitte nicht an jemand anderes weiter, >> löschen Sie alle Kopien und Anhänge davon und lassen Sie mich bitte wissen, >> dass die E-Mail an die falsche Person gesendet wurde. >> >> >> >> This e-mail is confidential. If you received this communication by >> mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies >> and attachments, and please let me know that it has gone to the wrong >> person. >> >> -- 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/437fd4f3-627d-4eb1-9c38-aae9d9361b03n%40chromium.org.
