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

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 6:44 PM Fergal Daly wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola > wrote: > >> I think specifying these reasons is important. As noted in the linked >> issue , I >> think the end goal should be: >> >>

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Document Render-Blocking

Contact emailskhushalsa...@google.com Explainer https://github.com/WICG/view-transitions/blob/main/document-render-blocking.md SpecificationNone Summary This feature enables authors to block rendering of a Document until the critical content has been parsed, ensuring a consistent first paint

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: prefers-reduced-transparency feature

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-09 17:56, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 8/1/23 8:13 PM, Luke wrote: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/881 I've filed a tag review (hopefully filled it all out correctly) On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 00:03:46 UTC+1 Chris Harrelson wrote: Hi Luke,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting features (lookback windows, flex-lite)

Thanks - the risk seems pretty low from a compat POV. LGTM1 On 8/9/23 12:43 PM, John Delaney wrote: > Is this based on metrics you have in front of you, or something else? Also, what might breakage look like in this situation? We don't have metrics measuring the usage of this key directly,

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Attribution Reporting features (lookback windows, flex-lite)

> Is this based on metrics you have in front of you, or something else? Also, what might breakage look like in this situation? We don't have metrics measuring the usage of this key directly, but we have checked with a number of known partners from the origin trial to see if this was being

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Media Queries: prefers-reduced-transparency feature

LGTM1 On 8/1/23 8:13 PM, Luke wrote: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/881 I've filed a tag review (hopefully filled it all out correctly) On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 00:03:46 UTC+1 Chris Harrelson wrote: Hi Luke, could you file for a TAG review for this feature? On

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

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-09 00:37, PhistucK wrote: 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*

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: CSS cap and rcap font units

LGTM2 /Daniel On 2023-08-04 16:38, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 8/4/23 6:41 AM, Daniil Sakhapov wrote: Contact emails sakha...@chromium.org Explainer Two font units related to the cap-height of the font. They are the last two to fully cover CSS Values font related

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove quirks mode behavior for option label attribute

LGTM2, so long as we have a killswitch. On 8/9/23 7:08 AM, Daniel Bratell wrote: If I did the math correctly, that puts the likely breakage below 14% (95% confidence) of the population, or less than 0.002% of page loads. (Napkin math, don't quote me, but it's in that ballpark which is a

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove quirks mode behavior for option label attribute

If I did the math correctly, that puts the likely breakage below 14% (95% confidence) of the population, or less than 0.002% of page loads. (Napkin math, don't quote me, but it's in that ballpark which is a good ballpark) LGTM1 /Daniel On 2023-08-03 03:49, Joey Arhar wrote: I looked at the

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

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:01, Domenic Denicola wrote: > 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

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Remove non-standard appearance keywords

That sounds good! Considering that the number in the use counter is already so low, it should be enough to show that a majority of the users only use the value that will not be removed and I'd be happy to see this ship. /Daniel On 2023-07-27 22:01, Di Zhang wrote: Hi, I had a talk with