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

dev] Intent to Ship: EditContext: TextFormat underlineStyle and underlineThickness In general this seems good, I just want to make sure we've done our due diligence on compat

not > ship. Someone (TM) should update that text. > > > Thanks for flagging this issue. Someone (a nice person) has just > sent a PR: https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb

LGTM3 On Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-7 Rick Byers wrote: > Looks great to me, LGTM2. Thanks for working on this! > > On Tue,

when we ship the feature. >> Currently with ScopedCustomElementRegistry feature flag on, it is passing >> all WPTs for custom elements, including the ones created specifically

going to ship this. >>>>> >>>>> *Other signals*: >>>>> >>>>> *WebView application risks* >>>>

. This intent to ramp up and ship it. >>> > The experiment resulted in major (40% to 72%) CPU reduction (and >>> battery saving), and no regressions in regression

send an intent to ship. WebKit: In development Already has character-level mirroring. rtlm support is being worked on for the harfbuzz ports. Web developers: No signals Other signals

, this intent fell off the radar of our tooling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LGTM1 to proceed with the outlined plan. Thanks for creating

As a web application developer brought here from https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7732, I would love to see this. I would be able to eliminate a

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

LGTM3 On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 5:23 PM Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > LGTM2 > > Thanks for all of the compat analysis, Frank. My sense is that this

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

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

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

the *Intent to Ship* stage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My plan is to go step by step: first land the fix, then >>>>>>> progressively

dev] Intent to Ship: Web Smart Card API LGTM2 (thanks for the very well-written explainer, btw). On 10/6/25 2:19 pm, Alex Russell wrote: LGTM1 On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 12:57:

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? >>>

dev] Intent to Ship: FedCM—Support >>> Structured JSON Responses from IdPs >>> >>> >>> >>> You don't often get email from slightlyoff

about to ship! On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:55 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > LGTM3 > On 9/29/25 11:31 am, 'Dan Clark' via blink-dev wrote: > > LGTM2 > > On Monday, September

"Will ship enabled for all users" > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 11:39 PM Daniel Clark > wrote: > > That sounds reasonable to me. > > *From:*Philip Jägenstedt

A quick note for API owners: the feature name has been changed to "Sticky user activation across same-origin *renderer-initiated* navigations

a separate Intent-to-Ship for applying LNA to >>>>>>> WebSockets, WebTransport, and WebRTC connections. >>>>>>> >>>

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

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

Hey Stepen, Any progress? Again, inclined to LGTM, as the arguments we've heard from other vendors to date are not compelling. If there's more

in this intent is relatively straightforward to implement >> and privacy and security is relatively simple to assess. But for developers >> there will probably be significant

Thank you for the reviews, everyone. The flag to undo the added comma for en-AU, en-GB, and en-IN is now landed in https://chromium-review.googlesource

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