Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove: connect-src CSP bypass in Web Payment API

LGTM1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 7:30 PM Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > Contact emailssmcgr...@chromium.org, rous...@chromium.org > > Specification > https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-manifest/#processing-model > > Summary > > Deprecate the ability for Web Payment API to bypass the connect-src CSP

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web Payment API - connect-src CSP policy

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 7:33 PM Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > > Can you re-send this intent as an intent to deprecate and remove (and > change the chrome status name accordingly)? > > Resent in > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/mlTnVIovBc0/m/uWMMIM2MCAAJ > and updatesd chrome

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System (OPFS) on Android

LGTM1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:10 PM 'Daseul Lee' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System (OPFS) on Android > Contact emails > > ds...@google.com > > Specification > > https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/#sandboxed-filesystem > > Design d

Re: [blink-dev] Debugging compressed pointers in Blink

+Michael Lippautz 2022年9月22日(木) 4:01 'Daniel Libby' via blink-dev : > https://crrev.com/c/3835682 enabled pointer compression for Blink > Member<> pointers. How are folks handling these while debugging (either > live or crash dumps)? Is there some tooling available that will look up and > apply

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove ImageDecoderInit.premultiplyAlpha.

Thanks everyone! This landed as https://chromiumdash.appspot.com/commit/88891c3ee5cec6754e6fe35337620a23e9791c3a - dale On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:43 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM3, to remove in 108 without deprecation period. > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:25 PM Mike Taylor > wrote: > >> L

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Smart Card API

What's the difference between this proposal to just using HTTPS client auth with a certificate on a smartcard? That's basically what we've been using for decades now... rei...@chromium.org schrieb am Mittwoch, 21. September 2022 um 20:41:56 UTC+2: > Not mentioned above but included in the expl

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System (OPFS) on Android

Intent to Ship: Origin Private File System (OPFS) on Android Contact emails ds...@google.com Specification https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/#sandboxed-filesystem Design docs https://web.dev/file-system-access/#accessing-the-origin-private-file-system Summary Enable the Origin Privat

[blink-dev] Debugging compressed pointers in Blink

https://crrev.com/c/3835682 enabled pointer compression for Blink Member<> pointers. How are folks handling these while debugging (either live or crash dumps)? Is there some tooling available that will look up and apply the cage base? I didn't see anything mentioned in https://docs.google.co

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Smart Card API

Not mentioned above but included in the explainer: To mitigate some of the obvious security concerns this API will only be available to Isolated Web Apps . Reilly Grant | Software Engineer | reil...@chromium.org | Google Chrome

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web Payment API - connect-src CSP policy

> Can you re-send this intent as an intent to deprecate and remove (and change the chrome status name accordingly)? Resent in https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/mlTnVIovBc0/m/uWMMIM2MCAAJ and updatesd chrome status. > That'd make it easier for the bots and the tools to ca

[blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove: connect-src CSP bypass in Web Payment API

Contact emailssmcgr...@chromium.org, rous...@chromium.org Specification https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-manifest/#processing-model Summary Deprecate the ability for Web Payment API to bypass the connect-src CSP policy when fetching the manifest. After this deprecation, a site's connect-src

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

LGTM2 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 18:28 Chris Harrelson wrote: > Great. LGTM1 then! > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:26 AM Ari Chivukula > wrote: > >> Ah, yes I responded to that comment and believe it would be possible to >> support that future extension without having to un-ship this version of >> wil

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:20 PM Shu-yu Guo wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:53 AM Philip Jägenstedt > wrote: > >> I assume that like most JS features this isn't tested in WPT but rather >> in Test262. Are the tests for this in Test262 all passing? >> > > Correct, it is tested via test262. I've

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Great. LGTM1 then! On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:26 AM Ari Chivukula wrote: > Ah, yes I responded to that comment and believe it would be possible to > support that future extension without having to un-ship this version of > wildcards. > > ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) > > > On Wed, Sep 21,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Ah, yes I responded to that comment and believe it would be possible to support that future extension without having to un-ship this version of wildcards. ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:21 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Essentially, this comment >

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Essentially, this comment suggested a negation syntax, which looks like a feature request, but may be good to ensure that the current parsing algorithm would enable such future extensions. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:17 PM

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:53 AM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > I assume that like most JS features this isn't tested in WPT but rather in > Test262. Are the tests for this in Test262 all passing? > Correct, it is tested via test262. I've been checking that box assuming that it's a stand-in for test2

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

I haven't seen the notes from the meeting (don't see them here: https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/tree/gh-pages/2022/telcons), do you have a copy and/or can you describe the forward-compatible cases? ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:38 AM Chris Harrelson wrote:

Re: [blink-dev] Re: FYI Privacy Sandbox Ads APIs origin trial

Hi folks. In regards to the FLEDGE bug and subsequent ramp down of FLEDGE for Chrome Stable, I wanted to bring your attention to a post from the FLEDGE API Announce list yesterday that impacts experim

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web Payment API - connect-src CSP policy

That sounds great! Can you re-send this intent as an intent to deprecate and remove (and change the chrome status name accordingly)? That'd make it easier for the bots and the tools to capture it correctly. On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 3:15:37 PM UTC+2 Stephen McGruer wrote: > If we are

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

I assume that like most JS features this isn't tested in WPT but rather in Test262. Are the tests for this in Test262 all passing? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:47 PM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 to ship group and groupToMap (a bit confusing that the summary uses > the old names). > > /Daniel > On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

LGTM3 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:47 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 to ship group and groupToMap (a bit confusing that the summary uses > the old names). > > /Daniel > On 2022-09-21 06:55, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 2:30 AM Shu-yu Guo wrote: > >> Contact emails s...

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to ship: Sec-CH-Prefers-Reduced-Motion client hint header

LGTM2 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:43 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM1 > > I agree with your analysis of the ergonomics of the feature. Thanks for > pushing this! > > On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 5:34:10 PM UTC+2 Thomas Steiner wrote: > >> TAG review >>> >>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-review

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove ImageDecoderInit.premultiplyAlpha.

LGTM3, to remove in 108 without deprecation period. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:25 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 > > On 9/21/22 7:44 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: > > LGTM1 > > It seems unlikely that even the (few) developers who access this data are > somehow relying on it. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to ship: Sec-CH-Prefers-Reduced-Motion client hint header

LGTM1 I agree with your analysis of the ergonomics of the feature. Thanks for pushing this! On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 5:34:10 PM UTC+2 Thomas Steiner wrote: > TAG review >> >> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/632 >> >> TAG review status >> >> Unsatisfied >> > > To add so

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

Hi Ari, There were some questions on the TAG review about potential extensions to the syntax for additional use cases. Just checking: do you think the current design is forward-compatible with these use cases? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:39 AM Ari Chivukula wrote: > There was one comment on the T

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

LGTM3, seems best to have a deprecation period unless the code is causing trouble. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:16 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2, thanks. > > On 9/21/22 10:59 AM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > > Sounds like a good plan. In that case, I am requesting to: > >1. Print a deprecation w

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove ImageDecoderInit.premultiplyAlpha.

LGTM2 On 9/21/22 7:44 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 It seems unlikely that even the (few) developers who access this data are somehow relying on it. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:10 PM Dale Curtis wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 3:36 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2022

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: font-tech() and font-format() condition extensions to CSS @supports

LGTM3 On 9/21/22 6:45 AM, Daniel Bratell wrote: LGTM2 /Daniel On 2022-09-21 07:39, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 - thanks for following up on the TAG's feedback! On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:47 AM Dominik Röttsches wrote: Contact emails dr...@chromium.org Explaine

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

LGTM2, thanks. On 9/21/22 10:59 AM, Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: Sounds like a good plan. In that case, I am requesting to: 1. Print a deprecation warning in M108 - M110. 2. Remove in M111. I will also directly contact the sites that are known to be using the PaymentInstruments API. On Wed,

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Web Smart Card API

Contact emailsdandra...@google.com Explainerhttps://github.com/dandrader/web-smart-card/blob/main/README.md Summary Enables smart card (PC/SC) applications to move to the Web platform. It gives them access to the PC/SC implementation (and card reader drivers) available in the host OS. Blink co

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

Sounds like a good plan. In that case, I am requesting to: 1. Print a deprecation warning in M108 - M110. 2. Remove in M111. I will also directly contact the sites that are known to be using the PaymentInstruments API. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:52 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > Thanks for all

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

Thanks for all the research Rouslan. The risk seems pretty low (despite the few known instances of breakage - trying to directly contact those sites would be good), but unless there's a compelling reason to remove it ASAP, a few milestones of deprecation reports could surface this to environmen

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype & Ship: Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins

There was one comment on the TAG thread: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/765#issuecomment-1245616454 Mozilla just published a positive position: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/679 ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:39 PM Mike Ta

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web Payment API - connect-src CSP policy

If we are going to treat this like a deprecation instead (which is what a report only mode sounds to me?), then it makes more sense to me to skip an OT entirely. That is: - M108 - begin deprecation period, developers get warnings - M111 (for example) - enable behavior, start reverse origin trial i

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

(remove in M108, to be clear - just restating from the Chromestatus entry as Yoav asked about the timeline) On Wed, Sept 21, 2022, 9:00 a.m. Rouslan Solomakhin wrote: > Due to the low uptake (< 0.00010 % page loads), we were planning to remove > PaymentInstruments API without deprecation reporti

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Web Payment API - connect-src CSP policy

> So is the plan to get properties currently using PaymentHandler to experiment with this and see if there's breakage? Yes, that's the plan. > Should we initially ship a "report only" mode that would help all properties know that CSP errors may be happening soon? Yes, we certainly could do that,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate and Remove: PaymentInstruments

Due to the low uptake (< 0.00010 % page loads), we were planning to remove PaymentInstruments API without deprecation reporting, but I am happy to adjust our plans if necessary. What would you recommend? On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:42 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > What did you have in mind in terms of a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Permissions-Policy: unload

LGTM to experiment 107-109 inclusive. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:17 AM Fergal Daly wrote: > Contact emailsfer...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/fergald/docs/blob/master/explainers/permissions-policy-unload.md > > Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7915 > > Summary >

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: SoftNavigation performance entry

Also also, to be more explicit about iframes, FCP does not expose any information about them, as they are not considered contentful . It only exposes paint information about the document's context, not any nested ones. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:49 PM

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: SoftNavigation performance entry

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 1:35 PM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Thanks for clarifying! > > Currently, the heuristic exposed doesn't (yet) expose FCP and LCP for > those soft navigations. But let's assume that it does, and that is the > eventual plan. > > Currently FCP includes any cross-origin paints in the

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to deprecate and remove ImageDecoderInit.premultiplyAlpha.

LGTM1 It seems unlikely that even the (few) developers who access this data are somehow relying on it. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:10 PM Dale Curtis wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 3:36 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:19 PM Dale Curtis >> wrote: >> >>> Contact emails

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

LGTM to extend experimentation till 111 inclusive. Thanks for working on standardizing this, and landing the PRs. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:50 AM 'Elad Alon' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Blink owners, > > We'd like to extend the Conditional Focus experiment again. It is > c

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: SoftNavigation performance entry

Thanks for clarifying! Currently, the heuristic exposed doesn't (yet) expose FCP and LCP for those soft navigations. But let's assume that it does, and that is the eventual plan. Currently FCP includes any cross-origin paints in the same context, but doesn't provide any details about them other t

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Array grouping

LGTM2 to ship group and groupToMap (a bit confusing that the summary uses the old names). /Daniel On 2022-09-21 06:55, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 2:30 AM Shu-yu Guo wrote: Contact emails s...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: font-tech() and font-format() condition extensions to CSS @supports

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2022-09-21 07:39, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM1 - thanks for following up on the TAG's feedback! On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:47 AM Dominik Röttsches wrote: Contact emails dr...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/ma

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: SoftNavigation performance entry

Yes, that was the concern, having information about load timings deduced from FCP/LCP metrics. But my question was, what mitigations do we have for regular navigations? Let's say we have a main page with zero content but a third party iframe, can we time it's load time via FCP/LCP or do we exclude

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

The new thread is now here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/R90_BzkM_jY On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 9:51:23 AM UTC+2 Elad Alon wrote: > Turns out that sending a second email with the exact same subject line, > gets the message routed to the original thread. Intere

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment #2: Conditional Focus

Hi Blink owners, We'd like to extend the Conditional Focus experiment again. It is currently running m102-m108, and we'd like to extend by 3 additional milestones, making it m102-m111 (inclusive). There has been significant progress in discussions lately, and we have a new API shape which has rou

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

Turns out that sending a second email with the exact same subject line, gets the message routed to the original thread. Interesting. I'll use another subject line now. :-) On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 9:50:25 AM UTC+2 Elad Alon wrote: > Hi Blink owners, > > We'd like to extend the Condit

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

Hi Blink owners, We'd like to extend the Conditional Focus experiment again. It is currently running m102-m108, and we'd like to extend by 3 additional milestones, making it m102-m111 (inclusive). There has been significant progress in discussions lately, and we have a new API shape which has rou