[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Corrected timing for low-lead-time prefetches

Chrome 126 (and corresponding releases from other Chromium browser vendors) will reflect a bugfix to the reporting of the responseStart timestamp for speculation rules prefetched navigation. It may cause a shift in some metrics, notably an increase in computed time to first byte (or similar

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: Speculation Rules Prefetch: Vary on particular cookies

Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/issues/302 https://mnot.github.io/I-D/draft-nottingham-http-availability-hints.html#name-cookie SpecificationNone Summary See https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/issues/302 The prefetch cache should allow

Re: [blink-dev] New API owner: Domenic Denicola

+1; Domenic makes a great addition to the API owners. On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:56 PM Johnny Stenback wrote: > It makes me very happy to see Domenic added to API owners. Congratulations > Domenic! > > Cheers, > Johnny > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:29 AM Christian Biesinger < >

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: Speculation rules: infer "source" if possible

Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org Specification https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/speculation-rules.html#parse-a-speculation-rule Summary This allows speculation rules to be written more concisely if the type of the rule is not ambiguous (i.e., most cases). For example:

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Navigational prefetch: follow redirects

Note: I would like to roll this out via a standard Finch rollout in order to monitor for any issues, rather than enabling by default with the M122 release. This change is otherwise fairly minor in terms of the web platform API surface area. Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org ExplainerNone

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: URLPattern: hasRegExpGroups

Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specification https://urlpattern.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-urlpattern-hasregexpgroups Summary Allows easy inspection of whether a URLPattern uses one or more ECMAScript regular expression groups, and therefore may not be suitable for use in cases

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document rules, response header, eagerness

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:10 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:33 AM Jeremy Roman > wrote: > >> Note: This intent email spans three Chromestatus entries for different >> sub-features that we experimented with together and would like permission

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document rules, response header, eagerness

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 11:40 AM Daniel Vogelheim wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:33 AM Jeremy Roman > wrote: > >> (3) Currently developers can only specify speculation rules using inline >> script tags. The proposed feature prov

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: URLPattern: RegExp v flag instead of u

; "Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms" I see the >>> answer is no. Which platforms are not going to be supported? >> >> Let me correct, the answer is yes. I also updated the chromestatus entry. >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 16,

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Document rules, response header, eagerness

Note: This intent email spans three Chromestatus entries for different sub-features that we experimented with together and would like permission to ship together in M121. Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org, adith...@chromium.org, isabo...@google.com, dome...@chromium.org, mc...@chromium.org

Re: [blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: URLPattern: RegExp v flag instead of u

The "less than 0.001%" number is not a fraction of page loads, but of URL patterns created -- so it's a minuscule fraction *of pages that are using URLPattern at all* (which itself is 0.11%); if you look up Blink.URLPattern.IncompatiblePatternWithUnicodeSetsMode in UMA you'll see the raw data, but

[blink-dev] Web-Facing Change PSA: URLPattern: Inherit left, wildcard right

See https://github.com/whatwg/urlpattern/pull/198; tracked in https://chromestatus.com/feature/6076647526891520 and https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1468446. The following changes apply to patterns which are constructed using a base URL, the constructor string syntax, or both

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: URL.canParse

Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org ExplainerNone Specificationhttps://url.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-url-canparse Summary A static operation to determine whether a URL string is valid. More concise than catching an exception thrown from the URL constructor. Blink componentBlink>DOM

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: deliveryType (Resource Timing)

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org Explainer https://gist.github.com/jeremyroman/43f8f290f1f404d3b7f6cb708601c7f0 Specification https://w3c.github.io/resource-timing/#dom-performanceresourcetiming-deliverytype Summary Expose information about how a resource was delivered. For example,

[blink-dev] Intent to Extend Experiment: Speculation Rules - Document rules, response header, deliveryType

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org, adith...@chromium.org, isabo...@google.com, dome...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/332 Specification

Re: [blink-dev] Questions related to flat tree and layout tree

Steve Kobes' Life of a Pixel talk is a good overview of this. While this is a couple years old, I think almost all of it remains accurate today. On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 1:44 PM Yogesh Tembe wrote: > I am trying to understand various trees that are

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to remove: zoom CSS property

How does this removal interact with the browser zoom feature? Today this seems to affect the CSS zoom property: getComputedStyle(document.documentElement).zoom How much of the code do you get to remove, vs how much is still needed to support browser zoom but will have reduced web exposure? On

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Speculation Rules - Document rules, response header, deliveryType

t; > Yes, though for the document resource itself it's pretty vacuous -- same-origin resources always pass the TAO check, and a prefetched document is same-origin to itself. Thanks! > Camille > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:58:14 PM UTC+1 Rick Byers wrote: > >> LGTM >&g

[blink-dev] Intent to Experiment: Speculation Rules - Document rules, response header, deliveryType

Contact emails *jbro...@chromium.org , adith...@chromium.org , isabo...@google.com , dome...@chromium.org , kenjibah...@chromium.org *Explainer *https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

wrote: >>> >>> LGTM2 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 6:26 PM Daniel Bratell >>> wrote: >>> >>>> LGTM1 >>>> >>>> /Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2022-05-11

Re: [blink-dev] Run headless blink engine on a graphics engine like Google's filament engine

I don't see how Filament is relevant (it seems to be a physically-based renderer for 3D models, not an environment for display presentation). You can do without a window server using the Linux kernel's DRM subsystem (see ui/ozone/platform/drm/) to directly render with Vulkan or OpenGL and then

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype: PerformanceResourceTiming.deliveryType

Contact emailsjbro...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/332 Specificationhttps://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/pull/343 (This is a pull request pending further discussion in the Web Perf WG and the authoring of suitable web platform tests.) Summary Expose

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:41 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:36 AM Jeremy Roman > wrote: > >> Contact emails >> >> jbro...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org >> >> Explainer >> >> https://github.com/WICG/

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:54 AM Theodore Olsauskas-Warren wrote: > Hi Team, > > Have there been any changes since the conclusion of the previous > experiment? > There have been some bug fixes and tweaks on the margins, but the API surface hasn't changed substantially since the previous

Re: [blink-dev] Request for Guidance

I'm not an API owner, but since it's shipped already I would suggest you just do an Intent to Prototype & Ship. If it's a relatively small feature then hopefully it will also be relatively quick for API owners to review. On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:34 PM 'Ajay Rahatekar' via blink-dev <

[blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md Specification https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/speculation-rules.html https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/prefetch.html Summary Flexible syntax for

Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: RFC 9225

iate your response to that >> question before shipping, kthxbai. >> > I'm not sure, but I believe the Priority of Constituencies <https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies> means that this issue should not block shipping. On Fri, Apr 1, 2022

[blink-dev] Intent to Prototype and Ship: RFC 9225

*Contact emails* blink-dev@chromium.org *Explainer* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9225.html#abstract *Spec* https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9225.html *Summary* Software defects have been identified as a major pain point for web developers. Accordingly, RFC 9225 deprecates them entirely.

Re: [blink-dev] Re: PSA: Enabling BroadcastChannel usage in opaque origin contexts

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 11:12 AM Andrew Williams wrote: > Thanks for taking a look, Yoav. I believe your understanding aligns with > mine - BroadcastChannel instances in an opaque origin context can only > exchange messages with other instances tied to that same opaque origin, and > there's no

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Continue Experimenting: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:33 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > LGTM to continue experimentation. Note that this would bring the OT to 11 > milestones, which is approaching the limits of OT timelines. > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:57 PM Jeremy Roman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 a

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Continue Experimenting: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:18 AM Yoav Weiss wrote: > Any current feedback from the OT up until now? > Feedback on the speculation rules API itself has been relatively limited. We had one issue where server postprocessing incorrectly interpreted a

[blink-dev] Intent to Continue Experimenting: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/blob/main/triggers.md Specification https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/speculation-rules.html https://wicg.github.io/nav-speculation/prefetch.html Summary Speculation Rules

[blink-dev] Intent to Continue Experimenting: Speculation Rules (Prefetch)

Contact emails jbro...@chromium.org, kenjibah...@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/jeremyroman/alternate-loading-modes/blob/main/triggers.md Specification https://jeremyroman.github.io/alternate-loading-modes/#speculation-rules Summary Speculation Rules is a flexible syntax for