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

Thanks for adding WPTs for WebTransport! I filed https://github.com/WICG/local-network-access/issues/104, because there is some more work needed on the

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* *Debuggability

Android 147 ship tag. With this >> change, we now fire three additional events to the drag source on drag >> start: `pointercancel`, `pointerout` and `pointerleave`

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

> user intent by preventing ad script in a context >> with API permission from using it, reinforcing >> user trust and control over their data. >> >> *Blink

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?* >> None. This is a

Does this intent (pseudoTarget) also >>> have similar limitations? In other words, if I have an animation on >>> `::view-transition-group(*)`, for example

to previous Intent discussions* >>>> Intent to Prototype: >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/686fbd23.2b0a0220

we have intent to > answer the charge regarding decomposed primitives as well. > > Best, > > Alex > > On Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at 9:41:55 PM UTC-8 Yoav Weiss

planning to ship alongside >>>>> Chrome and Firefox is planning to implement) the primary interoperability >>>>> risk is that a WebNN implementation

on this Intent to Ship. >>>> >>>> While testing Chrome Beta, Google testers discovered the new values >>>> (16, and presumably 32 as well)

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

Hey Alex, Sorry for the slow reply here. We discussed this at last week's API OWNERS and there is some hard-to-address privacy conern here, but

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

> Will ship enabled for all users >>> >>> *Requires code in //chrome?* >>> False >>> >>> *Tracking bug* >>> https:

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM Mike Taylor wrote: > On 2/19/26 2:29 pm, Chromestatus wrote: > > *Contact emails* > hchao@chromium.org

On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 10:59 AM Rick Byers wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM Hubert Chao wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 10, 2026

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

to-ship >> >> LGTM2 >> On 2/11/26 8:42 pm, Rick Byers wrote: >> >> LGTM1 as an IWA API. >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 4:24 PM Chromestatus

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

we would ship it >> in Chrome. >> >> Rick (on behalf of Chrome ATLs) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:04 PM Ad 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

plan to ship this addition. >>>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I've now filed requests for WebKit >>> & Mozilla >>> positions.

currently show 0% usage in Canary and Dev. > > It will be interesting to report on this in a future Intent to Ship - > after you get some stable exposure. > Yes, will do. Dominik

reviewing the intent, >> Alex. >> >> Regarding unified behavior with >> RTCAudioSourceStats, I don't >> believe this API serves the same >

not an intent to to ship. > > I'm happy to join any SING call if you'd like to discuss this further. > > Thanks! > > Johann > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 8:17