>> IWA, WebExtension, etc, which have a higher level of trust, it makes sense >> to me that the values could be untruncated, both retaining those smaller >> values

> > IWA OWNER LGTM, this is an extension to an > existing IWA-specific feature. Thank you for > finding a solution which fits within the existing > Web Request API. >

as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required > according to the IWA-specific API launch process > ). > > Similar to Unrestricted WebUSB, this API is granting

.com iwa-team@google.com Documentation https://developer.chrome.com/docs/iwa/allowlist Launch bug https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4381879 Link to entry on the

>> IWA OWNER LGTM >> >> This is an extension to an existing IWA-only feature. Multicast >> introduces additional privacy concerns because since content

have a IWA app which utilizes controlled-frames to render 3rd party websites and it works perfectly fine bundled locally on my Windows machine (installed via "Install IWA from

see the IWA explainer: >>>>> https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.md >>>>> >>>>> >>>

the hosted IWA on KIOSK through admin console? Thank you, Kaoru 2025年2月12日水曜日 3:55:56 UTC+9 Swetha Sivaram: > We expect to introduce support for a limited number of IWAs in Kiosk

blesses an IWA, we should expect there to be cases where we'll want async >>> gating for things like policy controls. >>> >>> Best, >>>

launching the IWA > version now? If so, I am happy to launch this earlier. > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2024 at 5:53:13 PM UTC+2 sligh...@chromium.org > wrote: > >

as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required >>> according to the IWA-specific API launch process >>> ). >>> >>> This feature

, the IWA security rules are enforced with existing web primitives >>>> (CSP/TT, permissions policy, COI) that already have DevTools support. There >>>>

API on IWA would constitute >>> evidence of substantial progress, to consider an extension of the OT beyond >>> M131. >>> >>> The focus for

as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required >>> according to the IWA-specific API launch process >>> ). >>> >>> >>

as an IWA OWNER (3x LGTM from Blink API OWNERS are still required >>>>> according to the IWA-specific API launch process >>>>> ). >>>>

scoped to IWA contexts. WebView application risks None Debuggability Sites can debug via Element.requestFullscreen()'s promise, which may reject with a TypeError containing

to get IWA onto chromium / mobile -- although I'm not sure this comment is on-topic as blink isn't opinionated. + I can only imagine the 'Jerry vs Anil' battles happening

see the IWA explainer: https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.md *Blink component *Blink>ControlledFrame *TAG review *Not yet requested*Risks

see the IWA explainer: https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.md Blink component Blink>ControlledFrame (Not yet created. For technical reasons