Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked issue , I think the end goal should be: - Every reason that a browser ever emits, is found in a specification somewhere. (It doesn't have to be the HTML spec, e

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS logical flow relative values

They chose "open issues in our Github repo for each point of feedback" as the result of the review and the mentioned issue was filed, with a resolution to compute the keywords to themselves, rather than to the physical values. ☆*PhistucK* On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:06 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGT

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: Deprecate unload event

Still, previous breaking changes to the unload event that affected SAP were present in the /deprecated page, so the safest thing to do is to follow the same pattern here, no? On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:18 AM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 08:00, Brandon Heenan wrote: > >> Flipping th

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS logical flow relative values

LGTM1 On 8/8/23 7:11 AM, obr...@igalia.com wrote: I got an email saying that new features will be announced in blog posts and enterprise release notes about 1 week before a milestone reaches beta. We are close to that point and still no LGTM, so I guess it's better to delay this and try to tar

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Storage Access API with Prompts

Hi Alex, I hear you about the method names. However since Safari, Firefox, and Edge had all previously shipped this API using these names and web developers have already begun using it, it would have been disruptive for Chrome to force a rename. We opted to limit the disruption we caused to imp

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Prototype: Web environment integrity API

I'm not certain how relevant Private Access Tokens are to the current discussion of Web Environment Integrity; I feel like the proposal should be considered on its own merit. But given that Private Access Tokens have been brought up as a point of comparison, and given that Private Access Tokens

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Back/forward cache NotRestoredReasons API

+bfcache-dev I was talking to Fergal today and discussed this, and I am not sure about adding browser-specific reasons to the spec. For example, some reasons like "speech synthesis API is used" / "unload handler" are completely specific to Chrome, and it doesn't really make sense to add them to

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: CSS logical flow relative values

I got an email saying that new features will be announced in blog posts and enterprise release notes about 1 week before a milestone reaches beta. We are close to that point and still no LGTM, so I guess it's better to delay this and try to target 118 instead. El dia dimecres, 2 d’agost de 2023

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Deprecate: Remove "Sanitizer API MVP"

Hi, let me give my 2 cents as someone from Firefox who works closely with Daniel on this. We have received valuable feedback that led to spec changes where exposed functionality, API shape as well as security guarantees are changing. Part of this feedback came a bit later than initially hoped

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Deprecate: Deprecate unload event

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 08:00, Brandon Heenan wrote: > Flipping the permission policy default is still a breaking change that > requires some action from the developer to keep unload events, right? If > so, we still want en entry in the /deprecated page so that unmanaged > (vendors/BYOD/outbound) u