Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>> *No information

reset the experiment to be starting in M158. We can follow up offline on the easiest way to implement this tooling-wise (chromestatus is not designed for it). Rick On Tue, Oct 27, 2026

> WebMCP experiment to allow page load usage to exceed the 0.5% warning >>>> threshold up to a maximum of 2.0%. >>>> >>>> ### Context >

LGTM to experiment M151-M156 inclusive. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 1:05 PM 'Philipp Hancke' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >>

is an experiment, not everything needs to, or even should, be determined or understood when it starts. That said, I am not sure this is something users are requesting. It involves tradeoffs

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > N/A > > > *Reason

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such > that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > > /No information provided

LGTM to experiment from M148 to M150 inclusive. >> On 4/8/26 7:23 pm, Chromestatus wrote: >> >> *Contact emails* >> ekar...@chromium.org, icle...@chromium

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such > that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > > /No information provided

while this Intent was still open, I think we can treat 157-168 as the initial range of milestones for the trial. Note this technically is different from an extension which would require

>> experiment extension? >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 4:27 AM Chromestatus < >> admin@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > *No information provided

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > *No information provided

Hi all! We collected styleDuration, forcedStyleDuration, layoutDuration and forcedLayoutDuration in RUM across Shopify storefronts during the origin

and actually experiment. On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 8:00 AM Chromestatus < admin@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote: > *Contact emails* > sisidovski@chromium.org >

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > None. > > > *Reason

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>> *No information

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > *No information provided

with an intent > to run a gapless OT. That is, you are being *strongly* encouraged to ship > and make compatible additions to the baseline API from here. Alternatively, > you

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such > that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > > /No information provided

LGTM to experiment till M156 > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 8:55 PM 'Sam Goto' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> >> >>

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such > that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > > /No information provided

an > Intent-to-Ship, and are agreeing to treat it as such. With that caveat, and > with the Finch rollout plan in play, LGTM1. > > LGTM2 - thanks for the careful rollout plan

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that >> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >> *No information

for the experiment, but whenever we add >> or change or improve timing functions or functionality we need to consider >> if we have made timing attacks possible or simpler

discussed this intent at API >>> OWNERS this morning, and it isn't entirely clear why we aren't sending an >>> I2S instead. Do we not have clarity on the

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>>

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > No. > > > *Ongoing

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > No > > > *Ongoing

LGTM to experiment M152-M157 inclusive. On Thursday, July 2, 2026 at 7:25:50 AM UTC-4 Yoav Weiss wrote: > *Contact emails* > yoavweiss@chromium.org > > *Explainer*