Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

I was trying to avoid being too specific about what would be worth measuring both because I haven't taken the time to think through all the details, and because other folks on this thread have a lot of domain expertise that can help figure out what makes sense. I just wanted to point out that if

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Thanks David, Dominik. As API owners I think our job is largely about evaluating interop risk vs. platform benefit. It's hard for me to evaluate the benefit of this feature without synthesis (how big of a problem is webfont fallback in practice?). But it seems clear to me that adding this feature

[blink-dev] Re: PSA: Virtual web test suits now have expiration dates

Hi Folks This is a reminder as we are approaching July 1st, 2023, the initial expiration date I set for all the virtual test suites. I did a search just now. Most VTS would still expire at that date (161 out of 194). Can we review this to make sure we do not lose coverage suddenly? thanks,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS font-variant-position property

Hi David and Rick, It's a shame to me to be holding back interop on the case of fonts having > the superscript or subscript glyphs out of fear for the case where they > don't. Perhaps we can treat the case of font-variant-position being used > with fonts that lack the glyphs as a site bug that we

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs

OK - let's consider this I2S officially revived. Looking for a 3rd LGTM to begin shipping in M115. We have implemented 3rd party deprecation trial support for M115+ (see https://developer.chrome.com/blog/storage-partitioning-deprecation-trial/#participate-in-the-deprecation-trials), and

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: First-party sets

Hi Andrey, We're still collecting metrics at 1%. We want to be sure that this feature does not regress core web vitals , which is why we're taking our time and analyzing thoroughly. I will post here when we roll out to 100% (which I expect to be soon, within the next

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: First-party sets

How far along is this now? Are we at 100%? On Wednesday, 17 May 2023 at 21:11:35 UTC+2 Chris Fredrickson wrote: > Thanks all. Just an update - we're rolling First-Party Sets out to 1% on > Chrome M113 Stable now, and plan to ramp up to 100% over the next few weeks > (barring metrics

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add value argument to URLSearchParams's has() and delete()

Hi Debadree, That's very promising! The code looks right to me, but just to be sure, did you verify that the exceptions are thrown in a test case where the 2nd argument makes a difference? It's a bit suspicious when no sites at all threw the exception :) Best regards, Philip On Tue, May 30,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Add value argument to URLSearchParams's has() and delete()

Hey Everyone! Sorry for the delays I followed Philip's suggestion on testing if behavior diverged in these sites, I checked this by throwing exceptions if the actual return value is different if I used name only or both name and value, I am including the code for reference: bool