Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread Martin Thomson 
This seems to be a more specific instance of WoT.  As such, the goals
are much clearer here.  While some of the concerns with the WoT
charter apply (security in particular!), here are a few additional
observations:

Exposing the level of information that they claim to want to expose
needs more privacy treatment than just a casual mention of the PIG.

Websockets?  Protocol?  Both of these are red flags.  Protocol
development is an entirely different game to APIs and the choice of
websockets makes me question the judgment of the people involved.  Of
particular concern is how the group intends to manage interactions
with SOP.  Do they intend to allow the web at large to connect to
parts of the car?  The security architecture is worrying in its lack
of detail.

If this proceeds, the naming choice (wwwivi) will have to change.  It
is not OK to register a new GTLD (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761).  A similar mistake was made
recently in the IETF, and it was ugly. For people interested in the
gory details, I can provide more details offline.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 6:32 AM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
>
>   Automotive Working Group
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Oct/0003.html
>   https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html
>
> Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
> Monday, November 7.  However, I hope to be able to complete the
> comments by Tuesday, October 25.
>
> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> support or oppose it.
>
> Note that this is a new working group.  I don't know of anyone from
> Mozilla being involved in the discussions that led to this charter.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
>  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>  What I was walling in or walling out,
>  And to whom I was like to give offense.
>- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Media Source Extensions (MSE)

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C
(including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final
stage of being a W3C Recomendation:

  Media Source Extensions (MSE)
  W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/
  W3C Editor's draft: http://w3c.github.io/media-source/
  deadline: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 (but I hope to have the
comments done by Tuesday, October 25)

If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the
review, please say so in this thread.  (I'd note, however, that
there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so
it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first
time at this stage.)

(This is something we implement in Gecko, although I'm not sure if
we implement everything in the spec, or how involved Mozilla folks
have been in the spec process.)

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
The W3C is proposing a new charter for:

  Automotive Working Group
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Oct/0003.html
  https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html

Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, November 7.  However, I hope to be able to complete the
comments by Tuesday, October 25.

Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.

Note that this is a new working group.  I don't know of anyone from
Mozilla being involved in the discussions that led to this charter.

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:

  Audio Working Group
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Oct/.html
  https://www.w3.org/2011/audio/charter/audio-2016.html

Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, October 31.  However, I hope to be able to complete the
comments by Tuesday, October 25.

Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.

Mozilla does have participants in this group:
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=46884=1=org#_MozillaFoundation

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:

  Second Screen Working Group
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Sep/0011.html
  https://www.w3.org/2014/secondscreen/charter-2016.html

Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
next Tuesday, October 25.

Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.

Mozilla does have participants in this group:
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=74168=1=org#_MozillaFoundation

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
The comments I submitted on the WoT charter are archived at:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html

-David

On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> We collected some feedback in a document
> 
> and I'm going to try to summarise it here. Please let me know if you feel
> this feedback is appropriate and feel free to edit it before sending. I
> also welcome further feedback from this list if it can be provided in time.
> 
> 
> 
> There were some concerns expressed around the clarity of the goals set out
> in the charter and whether there has been sufficient research and
> incubation in order to proceed with the drafting of specifications via a
> Working Group.
> 
> We propose the charter could benefit from a reduced scope, a more
> lightweight approach and a simplified set of deliverables. This might
> include a simpler initial data model with a reduced set of metadata and a
> default encoding without a dependency on RDF (e.g. plain JSON), the
> specification of a single REST/WebSockets API and a reduced scope around
> methods for device discovery. We propose that the deliverables could be
> reduced down to a single specification describing a Web of Things
> architecture, data model and API and separate notes documenting bindings to
> non-web protocols and a set of test cases.
> 
> It is suggested that the WoT Current Practices
>  and WoT
> Architecture 
> documents referenced in the charter are not currently a good basis on which
> to build a specification and that the member submission
>  from EVRYTHNG and the Barcelona
> Supercomputing Center could provide a better starting point.
> 
> Mozilla welcomes the activity in this area but the charter as currently
> proposed may need some work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think
> 
> Ben
> 
> On 11 October 2016 at 02:52, L. David Baron  wrote:
> 
> > The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
> >
> >   Web of Things Working Group
> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Sep/0005.html
> >   https://www.w3.org/2016/09/wot-wg-charter.html
> >
> > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
> > this Friday, October 14.
> >
> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> > support or oppose it.
> >
> > My initial reaction would be to worry about whether there's
> > properly-incubated material here that's appropriate to charter a
> > working group for, or whether this is more of a (set of?) research
> > projects.  W3C has an existing Interest Group (not a Working Group,
> > so not designed to write Recommendation-track specifications) in
> > this area: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/ .
> >
> > -David
> >
> > --
> > 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> > 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
> >  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> >  What I was walling in or walling out,
> >  And to whom I was like to give offense.
> >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> >
> > ___
> > dev-platform mailing list
> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> >
> >

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron 
The comments submitted on HTML 5.1 are archived at:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0003.html

-David

On Thursday 2016-10-13 17:35 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51-20160915/changes.html#changes
> 
> which are in themselves not the easiest to review, filed this accordingly:
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/592
> 
> In addition to that editorial request, the one technically
> objectionable change I found in HTML 5.1 is the re-addition of 'rev'.
> I have commented on the issue that was used to add 'rev' back to HTML
> 5.1 accordingly with reasons for why that was a mistake (and should
> have never happened - might be exposing process issues that I may have
> to deal with separately)
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/256#issuecomment-253674835
> 
> Other than that, I would re-emphasize Annevk's post:
> 
> https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11
> 
> Which covers higher-level problems with HTML5.1, most of which are as
> of yet unaddressed.
> 
> I believe this is sufficient to file a nonformal objection with those
> two points (technical: drop rev, overall: HTML5.1 problematic as a
> whole).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tantek
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:45 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2016-10-12 11:22 -0400, Chris Hutten-Czapski wrote:
> >> Can you provide any details (either inline, or a sampling of links) to
> >> summarize the broader concerns that might not be encapsulated in the
> >> document itself?
> >
> > Some links:
> > https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11
> > https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> >> > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C
> >> > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final
> >> > stage of being a W3C Recomendation:
> >> >
> >> >   HTML 5.1
> >> >   W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/html/
> >> >   W3C Editor's draft: https://w3c.github.io/html/
> >> >   deadline: Thursday, October 13, 2016
> >> >
> >> > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the
> >> > review, please say so in this thread.  (I'd note, however, that
> >> > there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so
> >> > it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first
> >> > time at this stage.)
> >> >
> >> > Note that this specification is somewhat controversial for various
> >> > reasons, mainly related to the forking of the specification from the
> >> > WHATWG copy, the quality of the work done on it since the fork, and
> >> > some of the particular modifications that have been made since that
> >> > fork.
> >
> > --
> > 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> > 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
> >  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> >  What I was walling in or walling out,
> >  And to whom I was like to give offense.
> >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> >
> > ___
> > dev-platform mailing list
> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
> >

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to make Form Autocomplete popups use richlistbox's instead of trees

2016-10-17 Thread Mike Conley 
Resurrecting this old thread to let you all know that this autolanded last
night, and (if all goes well) should merge to mozilla-central soon. Thanks
to MattN for the reviews!

Dirty details are in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1296638

On 20 August 2016 at 06:10, Gijs Kruitbosch 
wrote:

> On 19/08/2016 16:25, Mike Conley wrote:
>
>> Summary says it all. See
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1296638 for details and
>> rationale.
>>
>> I have a working version of this on my local machine, and will likely put
>> it up for review today or early next week.
>>
>
> I probably don't need to tell you this, but just in case: please make sure
> this continues to be accessible to users who need a11y tools to whatever
> extent it works today. Not sure how much the a11y reflection of that popup
> is tied to the current implementation. Marco Zehe can probably help with
> testing/feedback if necessary.
>
> ~ Gijs
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-10-17 Thread Peter Dolanjski 
Thanks for taking the time to provide thorough feedback.

3) For Windows Vista, I don't see where the fire is. I realize that it has
> a vastly smaller user base, but it is close to Window 7 code base and API
> wise.


I'm sure the engineering team can probably provide a more detailed response
on this one, but as I understand it the main issue is that the sandboxing
effort [1] makes use of Chromium's sandbox [2] which now only supports
Windows 7+.
The challenge would come from maintaining a separate version for Vista
(which given the relatively low user numbers is hard to justify).

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox
[2] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox

Peter

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 5:53 AM,  wrote:

> I'm just a Developer Edition/Beta user and I have a Windows 10 system.
> That said, you did ask for opinions from a 'broader audience', so I guess I
> count. Here are my thoughts such as they are.
>
> 1) Mozilla supported Windows 95 for 6 years (1.5.0.12 in 2007) after its
> last update (2001), Windows 98 SE for 2 years (2.0.0.20 in 2008) after its
> last update (2006), and Windows 2000 for 3 years (12.0/ESR 10.0.12 in 2013)
> after its last update (2010). Mozilla has a long history of extending
> support to operating systems well past their expiration date. This is the
> case even when it causes development problems just to keep in the spirit of
> the Mozilla Manifesto that the Internet remain accessible to as many people
> as possible.
>
> 2) Now with regard to Windows XP. XP SP2 had its last update in (2009) and
> XP SP3 had its last update in (2014). Firefox has been supporting XP SP2
> for 7 years beyond its last update and XP SP3 for 2 years beyond its last
> update. Mozilla's support for XP SP3 is about normal for the extending
> support beyond the life cycle of an OS. Mozilla's support for XP SP2, on
> the other hand, is downright saintly. I mean if you do drop it on ESR 52,
> which ends in 2018, you will have supported XP SP2 for 9 years beyond its
> last update. Considering how ancient XP is and how different its code base
> and APIs are from any modern version of Windows, ESR 52 is probably a good
> place to end support. Windows XP had a good run and should now receive an
> honorary salute as it goes off into the horizon.
>
> 3) For Windows Vista, I don't see where the fire is. I realize that it has
> a vastly smaller user base, but it is close to Window 7 code base and API
> wise. Windows 2000 and Windows XP RTM/SP1 were also close like Windows
> Vista and Windows 7 are.  I remember that Mozilla kept Windows 2000 on
> Tier-2 support next Windows XP RTM/SP1 on Tier-1 support until it
> discontinued support for Windows XP RTM/SP1 in 2013. I don't see why
> Mozilla can't continue to support Windows Vista with the Firefox 32 bit
> installer on Tier-2 support at least until ESR 66 if not the length of time
> that it supports Windows 7 SP1.
>
> Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thank you for your time.
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform