Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

Thank you for the update, Ethan! This clarifies a lot. On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 6:07 AM 'Ethan Jimenez' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks for the response Mike! > > > > I edited the “Debuggability” section below and will update the Chrome > status entry soon. > > > > Best

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

I'm incredibly excited about this feature. Thanks for driving it in Chromium, Ethan. Regarding the templates, it's also not clear to me that TAG review is optional in this case. At a minimum, you should be filing a request for review with a heavy suggestion that it should be treated as an FYI.

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

Thanks for the response Mike! I edited the "Debuggability" section below and will update the Chrome status entry soon. Best regards, Ethan From: Mike Taylor Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 1:03 PM To: Ethan Jimenez Cc: blink-dev@chromium.org; Philip Jägenstedt ; Mathias Bynens Subject:

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

(I'm not Mathias, but...) You can just respond to this thread with the debug info, and update the Chromestatus entry as well - thanks! On 1/20/22 3:57 PM, 'Ethan Jimenez' via blink-dev wrote: Hi everyone! Philip, thanks for the encouragement, I’m super excited to deliver subgrid knowing

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: CSS Subgrid

Hi everyone! Philip, thanks for the encouragement, I'm super excited to deliver subgrid knowing that it's going to make so many devs happy. @Mathias Bynens quick question, should I re-send the intent to prototype or just edit it here? Thanks in advance, Ethan

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Origin Isolation By Default / Deprecate document.domain

At Meta (formerly known as Facebook) we have a fair amount of dependencies on domain lowering via document.domain. We've discussed this internally, and feel that the most difficult aspect of this for us currently is identifying where we depend on domain lowering. We feel that something that

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

DISREGARD. This is a duplicate of https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/yNslidDtNho/m/IEPD25X_AAAJ On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 9:42:39 AM UTC-8 Austin Sullivan wrote: > Contact emailsasu...@chromium.org, five...@chromium.org, m...@chromium.org > , rs...@chromium.org > >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Storage Foundation API

Hi Emanuel, A question inline below. On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:02 AM Emanuel Krivoy wrote: > Hello blink-dev, > > > > We’d like to ask for an extension to our Origin Trial, from M99 to M101. > As mentioned in our previous I2E >

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Origin Trial: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

Contact emailsasu...@chromium.org, fived...@chromium.org, m...@chromium.org, r...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/file-system-access/blob/main/AccessHandle.md Specification Summary The Origin Private File System (OPFS, part of the File System Access API) is augmented with a new

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to extend the origin trial: WebTransport over HTTP/3

Hi Can you please let me know what transport protocol do the Streams API use in WebTransport over http3/quic. I am assuming the datagram API uses the UDP protocol for transport . Can you also please let me know what is the difference in latency when you send data using Streams API vs

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ALPN extension in wss-schemed WebSockets connections

I see. Thanks for the additional detail! This still LGTM2, though. As you note, this brings us closer to what other vendors are doing, and a better solution is going to require some new agreement between folks about how to handle the set of servers you're pointing at. Implementing that sounds

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ALPN extension in wss-schemed WebSockets connections

Well, there is, alas, still a difference because HTTP/2 + WebSockets is complicated. But less of one at least. :-) (WebSockets support wasn't part of HTTP/2, and HTTP/3 for that matter, from the beginning. That means we can't be sure an HTTP/2-supporting server doesn't also support WebSockets,

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Origin Private File System extension: AccessHandle

We’d like to ask for an extension to our Origin Trial, from M99 to M101. As mentioned in the Storage Foundation I2E , our partner intended to run a final series of tests with the new surface, giving us a chance for

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Storage Foundation API

Hello blink-dev, We’d like to ask for an extension to our Origin Trial, from M99 to M101. As mentioned in our previous I2E , our partner intended to run a final series of tests that would allow us to measure the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Conditional Focus

The partner I had for this feature had a change of scheduling, and will only be set to deploy their test use of it in about a month. I would therefore like to reset this experiment, stopping it for 3 weeks and then starting it afresh in m99-m102 (inclusive). Wdys? Relevant: Discussions about

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: TLS ALPN extension in wss-schemed WebSockets connections

LGTM2. From a Fetch perspective, there shouldn't be a difference between the way we establish a Web Socket connection and regular ol' HTTP requests. Aligning our behavior with other vendors in this respect is appreciated! -mike On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:22 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM1,