LGTM2 On Thu, Jul 6, 2023, 11:54 AM Rick Byers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Protected audiences seems like one of the most powerful and complex > features ever added to Chromium, and I'll admit I've struggled to > understand it at enough depth to do a decent API owner review. I carved out > a few more hours this morning and am now comfortable giving my LGTM1 to > ship. My reasoning is below for those few interested. > > I'm impressed and inspired by the scope of investment here across the > whole online advertising industry. Just seeing the level of investment and > breadth of proposals that have been explored over the past 3.5 years makes > it clear there's an important problem to be solved here. I don't feel > qualified (not sure anyone really is) to predict whether putting such a > critical piece of the adtech architecture into browsers will ultimately > succeed and prove to be good for the web or not. But it does seem like we > have to try and find out. The most obvious competing path is for ad-funded > content to rely on either covert tracking or login walls, both of which > will be an arms race which will be hard to win without some viable > alternatives like protected audiences and topics. I'm particularly > concerned with login walls being strictly worse for privacy and information > discovery (eg. risks content being indexable only between large publishers > and search engines via business deals). Given that the only other plausible > alternative for Chrome is to preserve the status quo of third-party > cookies, I personally see this as a step forward in giving users more > choice, transparency and control over advertising and their privacy. > Critically, shipping this now creates a path by which the > targeted advertising tradeoff space is likely to continue to be improved > over time. > > From an interop risk perspective, despite the lack of official signals, > given the feedback we've seen from other implementers on features like > topics, I think it's safe to assume there won't be support from other > engines anytime soon. I'd be interested to hear what other chromium > embedders think, but that's not technically part of our interop risk > signals and I imagine we'll see soon enough what other chromium browsers do > with the privacy sandbox APIs. Still, IMHO we should be open to ideas for > things we could do to make it easier for other chromium browsers to adopt > (or fully disable) this API. It seems clear to me that tons of work has > gone into puting the API on a plausible path to interoperability, but it's > also clear it's a huge effort with work still to do. Thank you Dominic, > Paul and team for your investments here and keeping it up, guided by the > engagement and feedback you're getting. Now that the compat-impacting spec > issues have been resolved or have a clear plan to resolve, I'm comfortable > saying that the minimum spec/test bar for a major new feature to chip in > chromium has been met. > > I am somewhat concerned about the long-term implications on web > performance (given the isolation requirements) but was heartened by the > work that has gone into setting quotas and limits and exploration of > alternate computing models like "bidding and auction services". I feel > confident that we have lots of options (many more than with 3PCs today) for > adjusting the tradeoff space in the future if performance proves to be a > real problem in practice. > > Overall, given the ambition of what is being attempted here (and our > options for course correcting or even backtracking if needed), it seems to > me the feature has reached a level of maturity that it's time to ship a V1 > while continuing to iterate on the spec and larger open industry debate. > > Rick > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 5:50 PM Paul Jensen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 5:03 PM Mike Taylor <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 7/1/23 3:09 AM, Paul Jensen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 5:33 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:54 PM Paul Jensen <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yoav, >>>>> >>>>> Protected Audiences has been fortunate to have a ton of design >>>>> contributions and feedback, but consequently has a lot of issues filed. >>>>> We >>>>> try to respond to all issues, as you can see by the discussion comments on >>>>> nearly all issues. I went through and triaged all the issues recently. I >>>>> closed many of them, created some labels and labeled many of them. Here’s >>>>> where I think the open issues stand: >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> 65 >>>>> >>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/Non-breaking%20Feature%20Request> >>>>> I labeled “Non-breaking Feature Request”, meaning they’re requesting >>>>> new >>>>> functionality that is unlikely to cause backwards compatibility issues. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> 29 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/spec> are spec >>>>> related. As Dominic said above, most of these changes are unlikely to >>>>> break web content. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> 8 >>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/Looking%20for%20feedback> >>>>> are seeking feedback rather than pointing to a problem. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> 4 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/compat%20concern> >>>>> could potentially break compatibility. I think for all of these we’ve >>>>> decided to not adopt the proposed changes or we’ve decided to adopt the >>>>> proposed changes but as part of our longer-term plans in the future. I >>>>> should note that recently we adopted many breaking changes to our API, >>>>> but >>>>> did so in a way that supports backwards compatibility, so we can wean >>>>> developers off of the old APIs without causing immediate significant >>>>> breakage. If we chose to adopt some of these changes, I imagine we >>>>> could >>>>> do so in a similar non-breaking way. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> 86 >>>>> >>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22Non-breaking+Feature+Request%22++-label%3Aspec+-label%3A%22Looking+for+feedback%22+-label%3A%22compat+concern%22> >>>>> didn’t fit well into a particular category: >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Some were questions seeking to clarify details of our timeline >>>>> or the explainer or design. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Some were discussions that are mostly addressed but left open >>>>> so we don’t forget about remaining pieces. >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> Some are open discussions or examples. >>>>> >>>>> I think it’s worth noting that our usage of the issue system differs >>>>> from those of many other folks who ship features: We tend to use the >>>>> issues as open forums as opposed to only leaving open issues that need to >>>>> have decisions made. Many of the issues predate the FLEDGE explainer and >>>>> represent design discussions that culminated in FLEDGE’s design. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for going over the issues!! To be clear, the number of issues is >>>> not a concern in itself, and is indeed an indication of the level of >>>> engagement this had. >>>> This list of compat-related issues >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/compat%20concern> is the >>>> only relevant bit for this intent IMO. At the same time, it'd be good to >>>> settle these issues, or at least have a clear path towards future-compat >>>> around them, before shipping. WDYT? >>>> >>> >>> I think we’ve settled on paths to addressing each of the compat issues: >>> >>> #444 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/444> and #586 >>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/586> I think we’ve settled >>> on not pursuing for reasons expressed in the issues. >>> >>> #522 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/522> has been our long >>> term plan but we've heard feedback that it blocks adoption and usability at >>> this stage, especially in the long-tail of advertisers. Providing a >>> solution to audience stealing is an important goal of Protected Audience. >>> Our current implementation offers opt-in protection via our >>> Permission-Policy, and we're going to continue to look for an ergonomic >>> solution that facilitates adoption sufficiently to offer the protection by >>> default. >>> #554 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/554> is something we >>> might do, and could do in the future while offering a temporary >>> backward-compatible period. It doesn’t have significant developer >>> benefits, other than making it potentially more web-like, so I’m reluctant >>> to adopt it. >>> >>> Thanks Paul. Could you close out 586 and leave comments on 522 and 554 >>> with your current thinking? >>> >> Done. >> >>> >>> Re: 554, do you have plans to update the spec to match Chromium's >>> implementation of setBid(), setPriority(), and setPrioritySignalsOverride()? >>> >> Yes, I think this makes sense, I noted this in #554. We will make this >> change soon. >> >>> Or do something else? >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> I hope the labels I added make it clearer which are future >>>>> enhancements and not likely to break backwards compatibility. I honestly >>>>> think over the years before our Origin Trial and over the course of our >>>>> lengthy Origin Trial we’ve addressed all the feedback for core >>>>> functionality in Protected Audience and don’t anticipate breaking >>>>> backwards >>>>> compatibility in significant ways. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 3:56 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Glancing at the open issues, I see 291 of them >>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aopen>.. >>>>>> Would it be possible to go over the issues and label them so that it's >>>>>> clearer which are about future enhancements, which are editorial and >>>>>> which >>>>>> may have an impact on the processing model or API shape in ways that can >>>>>> impact future compatibility? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 8:00 PM Dominic Farolino <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As the spec mentor for this feature I'll offer a spec maturity >>>>>>> summary >>>>>>> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#:~:text=If%20your%20specification%20isn%27t%20a%20modification%20of%20an%20existing%20specification%2C%20include%20a%20one%2Dline%20spec%20maturity%20summary%20from%20someone%20outside%20your%20team%20(like%20your%20spec%20mentor)%20who%20has%20done%20a%20review.>. >>>>>>> @Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]> and I reviewed the spec in >>>>>>> detail recently and were pleased with the improvements that the team >>>>>>> worked >>>>>>> with us to make recently, especially with regards to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Formalizing the interaction with times and dates >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adding rigor to the in parallel work (and its interaction with >>>>>>> the main thread and the Script Runner realms) >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fetch integration >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifying the conversions from internal spec data to JS objects >>>>>>> when calling into the Script Runners >>>>>>> <https://wicg.github.io/turtledove/#script-runners>, mostly by >>>>>>> increasing the use of WebIDL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a few of these points there is still work to be done, and we've >>>>>>> been filing bugs <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/spec> >>>>>>> against the specification for individual tasks that the team has >>>>>>> committed >>>>>>> to making progress on in the very near future. The spec overall is not >>>>>>> yet very readable <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/646>, >>>>>>> which means external reviewers will have to spend time to understand the >>>>>>> flow before they can give substantive feedback. From a completeness >>>>>>> perspective, the spec still has over a dozen "TODOs" (I expect that >>>>>>> they’ll >>>>>>> be finished soon given how many have recently closed), including the >>>>>>> bulk >>>>>>> of the integration with Fenced Frames >>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/616>, whose completion >>>>>>> might help other browser engines notice new interoperability issues. The >>>>>>> team is completing these at a good pace, but this implies that in >>>>>>> addition >>>>>>> to finishing pieces of the spec that document the current >>>>>>> implementation, >>>>>>> there will probably be minor web-visible changes after shipping in M115. >>>>>>> However, most of these changes are unlikely to break web content, and if >>>>>>> anything bigger comes up, the Privacy Sandbox's general tools for >>>>>>> migrating >>>>>>> their users should be effective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:06 PM Paul Jensen <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Contact emails* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Explainer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/master/FLEDGE.m >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/master/FLEDGE.md>d >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://wicg.github.io/turtledove >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Protected Audience API (formerly known as FLEDGE) provides a >>>>>>>> method of interest-group advertising without having to track individual >>>>>>>> users’ detailed browsing history as is done today with third-party >>>>>>>> cookies. >>>>>>>> Additional advantages over cookies include time limits on group >>>>>>>> membership, >>>>>>>> better user controls, and more user transparency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blink>InterestGroups >>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component%3ABlink%3EInterestGroups&can=2> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/723 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TAG review status >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pending since March 2022 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>> Compatibility >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not a breaking change. To use it, sites will need to call >>>>>>>> the Protected Audience API. There is no change to existing behavior for >>>>>>>> sites not calling the API. It’s worth noting that the spec uses WebIDL >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> describe the script runners >>>>>>>> <https://wicg.github.io/turtledove/#script-runners> but the >>>>>>>> implementation does not. There may be minor compat issues as we align >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> implementation with the WebIDL semantics over time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interoperability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gecko: No signal, requested March 2023 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/770> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WebKit: No signal, requested March 2023 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/158> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edge: Edge explored interest group based advertising, namely with the >>>>>>>> PARAKEET proposal >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md>. >>>>>>>> PARAKEET shares much of its API with Protected Audience but as >>>>>>>> discussed in TPAC 2022 >>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QQgrm4oaRRRBr1gfvKj7D8rS2EW8kRgRUHPscvR8BNo/edit#slide=id.g15545e7b627_0_173>, >>>>>>>> involves proxying data to non-trusted servers in real-time whereas >>>>>>>> Protected Audience does not have long term plans to do this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Web developers: Significant interest from many web developers. >>>>>>>> Significant >>>>>>>> Origin Trial participation >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/fledge-tester-list.md>. >>>>>>>> WICG FLEDGE calls <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/88> >>>>>>>> are heavily attended. Interest in Protected Audience is further >>>>>>>> evidenced >>>>>>>> by the many related discussions and proposals that Protected >>>>>>>> Audience’s design draws from, most notably: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The original TURTLEDOVE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/Original-TURTLEDOVE.md> >>>>>>>> from Chrome. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SPARROW <https://github.com/WICG/sparrow> from Criteo. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Outcome-based TURTLEDOVE >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/OUTCOME_BASED.md> >>>>>>>> and Product-level TURTLEDOVE >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/PRODUCT_LEVEL.md> >>>>>>>> from RTB House. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dovekey >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/tree/master/proposals/dovekey> >>>>>>>> from Google Ads. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PARRROT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/prebid/identity-gatekeeper/blob/master/proposals/PARRROT.md> >>>>>>>> from Magnite. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TERN <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/TERN.md> >>>>>>>> from NextRoll. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Demo link >>>>>>>> https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/fledge-api/#demo >>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To learn more about debugging Protected Audience in Chrome please >>>>>>>> follow these links: >>>>>>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/fledge-api/#debugging >>>>>>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/fledge-api/#observe-fledge-events >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>>>>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All except WebView >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've tested all of the primary functionality in WPT. This API has >>>>>>>> a lot of surface area and so we're continuing to add platform tests >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/?q=fledge >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Flag name >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> InterestGroupStorage,AdInterestGroupAPI,Fledge,AllowURNsInIframes,BiddingAndScoringDebugReportingAPI >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, for settings UI controls and k-anonymity server communication. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Has been in Origin Trial since M101. We intend to start an >>>>>>>> incremental ramp to 100% in Stable with Chrome Release M115. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We’re addressing some remaining TODOs and specifying some >>>>>>>> recently added non-breaking features (e.g. #304 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/304>, #305 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/305>, #310 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/310>, #166 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/166>). >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Moving beyond our core use cases, we anticipate the need to >>>>>>>> support new functionality going forward. We don’t currently >>>>>>>> anticipate >>>>>>>> changes that would break backwards compatibility. >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Support for Bidding and Auction services >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bGd_nPuUrUg/m/j39WQ7e2AwAJ> >>>>>>>> is in progress. This is a non-breaking additional feature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5733583115255808 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intent to Prototype: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/w9hm8eQCmNI >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0VmMSsDWsFg/m/_0T5qleqCgAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intent to Extend Origin Trial: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/SD8Ot2gpz4g/m/A9uA-_cGAwAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gpmaOi3of_w/m/SyMclFhMAAAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/CBrV-2DrYFI/m/RTojC6kHAgAJ >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWrn8eM3wOtUY3RzmDrt7SVxR_y_6Fo02bJ%2BF1bzbwpFfkQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWrn8eM3wOtUY3RzmDrt7SVxR_y_6Fo02bJ%2BF1bzbwpFfkQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-uykDhn3EzgNacgnEExhiLwrdnc%2Bf7ZV6qMf%3DHk1ns1oHdTw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-uykDhn3EzgNacgnEExhiLwrdnc%2Bf7ZV6qMf%3DHk1ns1oHdTw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWr%3D1ROXvBN-k6trfMvLpnE74avuc4WtmyZRrAuOHdh0zNQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWr%3D1ROXvBN-k6trfMvLpnE74avuc4WtmyZRrAuOHdh0zNQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWrmxni_nFb60tusUdO%3D1i3ixRUWC2J86qa24u6B5e0SFpw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWrmxni_nFb60tusUdO%3D1i3ixRUWC2J86qa24u6B5e0SFpw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-EK9ZUm%3DAk1LXxi3PLK7CArEZ1EGbeLMdXKuPQdsGsQg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-EK9ZUm%3DAk1LXxi3PLK7CArEZ1EGbeLMdXKuPQdsGsQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw8of4RwVy9_uM%3DDW3hJwshuUSKWWmK1HPLpfjMX%3DmArJA%40mail.gmail.com.
