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

fine to ship > without additional bindings work. > > LGTM2 > > Thanks, > Vlad > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 5:33 PM 'Stephanie Zhang' via blink-dev

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

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

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

plans to ship it > as is*. > > *Blink component* > Blink>PerformanceAPIs > > > *Web Feature ID* > Missing feature - this feature will not exist beyond this

with this intent (especially after reflecting >>>>> >>>>> on my handling of the prompt API intent) is whether it meets our bar for >>>>

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing > APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android > WebView-based applications?/ > Low. The risk is no higher

in this intent is relatively straightforward to >>>>>> implement and privacy and security is relatively simple to assess. But for >>>>>>

ready to ship? Is there a spec issue tracking the nested frames case? I didn't see one in a quick scan, and I notice TAG is asking about it as well. On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 1:54 AM Chromestatus

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

dev] Intent to Ship: Reference Target >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for working on this API, it solves an important a11y and >>> functional

we should ship to match WebKit here. But also +1 to the question > of whether Mozilla has an opinion on the API shape and have any interest in > going beyond what WebKit has already

time we ship `window-drag`. >>>>> The ChromeStatus cites non-trivial usage for both existing names: >>>>> `-webkit-app-region` at 0.79% of page

is the Intent to Ship: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6a3e71b6.cff415cc.dde5e.00b1.GAE%40google.com (Apologies for the delay, I had a long

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

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? >>>

>> 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

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? >>> Low. The

see this ship (after apparently dropping the ball on it >>>>>>> myself >>>>>>> >>>>>>> over a decade ago)

our original Intent to Ship thread didn't adequately capture >> the momentum we see from the ecosystem for a generalized Prompt API. >> >> What began as early

Re: Intent to Ship: > Support hreflang and type for HTMLAreaElement > > > > > You don't often get email from mt...@igalia.com. Learn why > this is important

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

Re: Intent to Ship: Speculation rules: form_submission field LGTM2 On 6/15/26 2:40 pm, Alex Russell wrote: LGTM1 On Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 6:35:21 PM UTC-7 Huanpo Lin wrote: Yes

necessitates this Intent to Ship. >> >> The initial Intent to Ship >> for >> this feature already included a link to the specification's Pull Request

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

Hello. I have updated the ruby-overhang-spaces-vertical-003.html test. As you can see on wpt.fyi , all ruby-overhang tests are now passing. I