applying just to the relatively small number of sites on the RWS list is a good one. I do expect you're right that it'll be easy to drive down usage and I'd also guess that the

a return to the old world where users who opt-out of 3PCs may see some breakage they can only fix with cookie exceptions. It's a shame, but not really a new compat concern IMHO. LGTM1

Intent to deprecate and remove Shared Storage Contact emails cammie@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/shared-storage/blob/main/README.md Specification

Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Protected Audience Contact emails pauljensen@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/FLEDGE.md Specification

current approach to third-party cookies will be maintained, we are now planning to deprecate and remove the Private Aggregation API (along with certain other Privacy Sandbox APIs

Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Attribution Reporting API Contact emails linnan@chromium.org, jkarlin@chromium.org, apaseltiner@chromium.org Explainer https://github

Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Topics API Contact emails yaoxia@chromium.org Explainer https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics Specification https://patcg

autonous language and is a strong basis of > XSLT > (1) It would help to clarify XPath status > That's fair! To clarify, we are absolutely *not* removing `document.evaluate

/DTDs and >>>> incorporates them into parsing under specific circumstances. I propose to >>>> remove this functionality. >>>> >>

you planning to ship? >> Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jme...@google.com | >> 816-678-7195 <(816)%20678-7195> >> *If an API's not

> "Deprecate" means that the feature still works but using it shows a > deprecation warning in the DevTools console and kicks Reporting API. > > IMO, we should

> approval to remove.) >> > > Will do. And yeah I didn't think I needed LGTMs to deprecate, only to > remove, right? Akin to I2P not needing LGTM, but I2S needing

from M128 to M130. On Friday, February 28, 2025 at 8:05:49 PM UTC Mike Taylor wrote: > Just for the history books: how long was CHIPS disabled in WebView? 127 to > 130? > On 2/26

WebView team to proceed and will be > doing a gradual Finch rollout of the removal starting M133. Progress > will be tracked on this issue . > > Best, > Ayu > > On Monday

the "Intent to Deprecate" template from https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ without realizing it was not for "Intent to Deprecate and Remove

nobody seems to be calling them, it should be fine and 2 milestones should be enough to find deprecation warnings. LGTM3 On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:16 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM2 >

re going to clean up as soon as possible. Please disregard most sections of the email, the relevant bit is here: Reason this experiment is being extended We request to extend the origin

amend that to LGTM2 % filling out and request the Enterprise, > Debuggability, and Testing chips in chromestatus > > On 11/8/24 11:55 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: >> >

'll deprecate the method with `DeprecateAs` in the IDL file > 2. Then we'll add a blink runtime feature off by default that > hides the method with `RuntimeEnabled` to

>> and Testing in the chromestatus entry? Thanks! >>> >> On 8/26/24 12:40 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: >>> >> LGTM1 to remove - if there's no usage

Good to know. Thanks folks. On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:04 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > +1 - no approvals needed. :) > On 8/9/24 1:20 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > If this method was

idea is to add `position-area` in M129, and deprecate (but not yet >>> remove) `inset-area` also in M129. And then ideally remove `inset-area` in >>> M131. Two

complete, to avoid related noise. On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 12:52:23 PM UTC+1 Noam Rosenthal wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Aaron Leventhal > wrote: > >>

We propose to block access to IP address 0.0.0.0 in advance of PNA >> completely rolling out. Chrome is deprecating direct access to private >> network endpoints from

too hard to catch the cause for the behavior change in the few sites that will be affected. Sounds good, I will keep the existing console message in there, at least for a while. On Wed, May

been an intent to deprecate and > remove for this feature. However, that one failed to make it to the right > dashboards due to the subject line being incorrect. See that prior >

(resending to list) > > LGTM2 to go directly to removal (with a flag of course). Also, keep an eye > on enterprise feedback since they are a blind area. > > I took a look at

permissions (and specifically >>> referenced third_party/blink/renderer/modules/permissions/permission_descriptor.idl); >>> Looks like fingerprinting

m glad to hear that's the feedback you get. In addition to actually minimizing harm, it's also an important goal of our process to earn and retain the trust of web businesses

as value and could not find it, I guess it is >>> not standardized yet. >>> >>> >> The `as` values are defined as a Fetch destination >> . For