On Friday, 24 April 2026 at 12:01:27 UTC-4 mas...@chromium.org wrote: It is unfortunate that this detailed review didn't happen at the time of 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 Debuggability

of user intent. By embedding a > browser-controlled element in the page, the user's click provides a clear, > intentional signal. This enables a much better prompt UX and

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

we can ship. We would like the OT to be extended to coincide with > the new shipping estimate. > > Best, > Michael > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 7:59 AM Daniel Bratell >

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 >>>

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

to also ship >> this?". From the positions below, it doesn't seem like there's no risk.* >> Thanks for the clarification. Both Gecko and WebKit already

Hello. I missed to share the issue link of mozilla position I created. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1372 Thank you! 2026년 4월 9

LGTM3 On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 11:00 AM Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2026-04-04 23:22, Mike Taylor wrote: > > Thanks

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

were three ship blockers >> identified and now addressed: >> [Tag Review] - Quota vs. context window >> >> [Tag Review] - Interoperable model parameters

we should ship this now, so LGTM3. Of course we should continue to look at user feedback, UXR and developer feedback to ensure we're striking a great experience for users here (as

entry on the feature >> dashboardhttps://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6080438103703552 >> Requesting approval >> to ship?Yes.* >> >> >

the initial intent message itself) to my mailbox. This has happened multiple times in the past few months. Not sure how others do get them, though... Could it be because admin@cr-status

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 >>>> behaviour of existing APIs, such that >>>> it has potentially high risk for >>>> Android WebView

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: CSS Name-only > Container Queries > > Sounds close to a bugix to me, LGTM1 > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 2:15 PM Rune Lillesveen > wrote: > > *

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

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? >>

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

sending this Intent. I'm glad to see a team go straight to >> shipping when we have confidence that a feature is worthwhile! >> >> That said, it's a bit surprising

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

Re: Intent to Experiment: OpaqueRange > > > > > You don't often get email from slightlyoff@chromium.org. Learn why > this is important > > > > First

will this ship include the `flex-basis` property? See also: https://github.com/browserscore/features/pull/250 Most likely, yes. > > 在2026年3月24日星期二 UTC+8 20:58:30 写

"Will ship enabled for all users" >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 11:39 PM Daniel Clark >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That sounds

apps also ship >> incremental updates — not every page adopts extendedLifetime simultaneously >> if the deployment is not "sticky". Worse, users keep stale