Thanks Johann.

LGTM1 to deprecate, but please come back before M150 for us to discuss removal, so we have a better idea of the risk. And good luck driving usage down.

On 11/9/25 8:31 p.m., Johann Hofmann wrote:
Thanks both, I think you're spot on with these concerns, both could cause potential breakage and we'll have to work through them as part of the deprecation. It should be possible to look at data for both of these cases, although to Rick's point it may only be possible once we've worked through the list of partners with Related Website Sets.

I'm very confident that outside of the known list of RWS users both checking for existence of rSAFor and potentially problematic permissions checks should be rare enough that I'd still like to seek API Owner approval for this intent right now, also to unblock the outreach to these partners with a reference to the deprecation process in Chrome.

I believe that a viable worst-case option for the M150 timeline could be to simply no-op the API (and the permissions API integration) without RWS support while we track down remaining usage.


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 9:56 AM Mike Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

    One concern I have is once we remove the
    `top-level-storage-access` permission,
    `navigator.permissions.query` will throw a TypeError. Of the ~1%
    of pages using rSAFor, do we know how many of them are using
    `navigator.permissions.query`?

    On 11/8/25 8:39 a.m., Rick Byers wrote:
    That said, your point about it applying just to the relatively
    small number of sites on the RWS list is a good one. I do expect
    you're right that it'll be easy to drive down usage and I'd also
    guess that the vast majority of usage would be gated by a feature
    detect, right? Just feels like we'll need a bit more evidence to
    demonstrate why we know this will be safe to remove given the
    high UseCounter.

    Rick

    On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 1:52 PM Rick Byers <[email protected]>
    wrote:

        This one seems a bit trickier than RWS itself because we have
        to reason about the risk of code that assumes the API exists.
        I am supportive of deprecation now, but perhaps we should
        come back to the data after RWS is removed and see what the
        usage severity of breakage is in practice before approving
        removal?

        Rick

        On Fri, Nov 7, 2025, 12:35 p.m. 'Johann Hofmann' via
        blink-dev <[email protected]> wrote:

            Apologies, I used the wrong Chromestatus link (the
            original feature status), this one is correct:
            https://chromestatus.com/feature/5162221567082496

            On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 2:44 PM Johann Hofmann
            <[email protected]> wrote:

                Contact emails

                [email protected], [email protected]


                Explainer

                https://github.com/privacycg/requestStorageAccessFor
                <https://github.com/privacycg/requestStorageAccessFor>


                Specification

                https://privacycg.github.io/requestStorageAccessFor/
                <https://privacycg.github.io/requestStorageAccessFor/>


                Summary

                The requestStorageAccessFor (rSAFor) API is an
                extension to the Storage Access API that allows a
                top-level site to request access to unpartitioned
                ("first-party") cookies on behalf of embedded sites.
                Browsers will have discretion to grant or deny
                access, with mechanisms like Related Website Sets
                (RWS) membership as a potential signal. This allows
                for use of the Storage Access API by top-level sites.
                Following Chrome's announcement that the current
                approach to third-party cookies will be maintained,
                we are now planning to deprecate and remove rSAFor,
                as it is only usable in Chrome to request storage
                access between RWS sites. Related Website Sets will
                also be deprecated via a separate intent.


                Blink component

                Blink>StorageAccessAPI
                
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EStorageAccessAPI>


                Web Feature ID

                None


                Motivation

                Chrome has announced
                
<https://privacysandbox.com/news/update-on-plans-for-privacy-sandbox-technologies/>that
                the current approach to third-party cookies will be
                maintained. rSAFor currently has usage on about 0.95%
                of page loads
                
<https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/4332>,
                but any website relying on successful invocation of
                rSAFor (i.e. the API returns a promise that resolves)
                must also have registered a set on the RWS GitHub
                repository
                
<https://github.com/GoogleChrome/related-website-sets/blob/main/related_website_sets.JSON>.
                Any invocations of rSAFor outside of an RWS currently
                returns a promise that is rejected.


                Our metrics suggest that almost all of the usage of
                rSAFor is from websites that have registered sets. We
                will continue to monitor usage and aim to drive it
                down prior to removal by proactively informing set
                owners of the deprecation timelines and request them
                to turn down usage. Additionally, other browser
                engines have not signaled interest in implementing
                the API, obviating any interoperability concerns.


                Debuggability

                N/A


                Requires code in //chrome?

                False


                Estimated milestones

                Deprecate in M144, and target M150 for removal.


                Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

                https://chromestatus.com/feature/5122534152863744


                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 [email protected].
            To view this discussion visit
            
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4jr7zaQS-Sy%2B_DvWQsMWx_DMJ_sLsMe412Ca96Cg-uLyg%40mail.gmail.com
            
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4jr7zaQS-Sy%2B_DvWQsMWx_DMJ_sLsMe412Ca96Cg-uLyg%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 [email protected].
    To view this discussion visit
    
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8Q1KXUC0W9JMrpknW2o%2BPLdK7vi4d4dmhUZEssj1Gung%40mail.gmail.com
    
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY8Q1KXUC0W9JMrpknW2o%2BPLdK7vi4d4dmhUZEssj1Gung%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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/b31f0462-a150-4ab4-8921-28a7370bdd38%40chromium.org.

Reply via email to