What's next for ESLint on Firefox Source Code?

[Mark Banner]

A couple of days ago I blogged about what's next for ESLint on 
mozilla-central. In case you haven't seen it already, you can read about 
it here:


https://www.thebanners.uk/standard8/2018/10/03/whats-next-for-eslint-on-firefox-source-code/

Feedback welcome, on the blog or direct to me.

Mark.

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: unprefixed max-content and min-content for css sizing properties

[David Burns]

Are there any web platform tests for this feature?

David

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 20:49, Boris Chiou  wrote:

> Summary:
> `max-content` and `min-content` are sizing values for width, min-width,
> max-width, height, min-height, max-height, inline-size, min-inline-size,
> max-inline-size, and flex-basis. We support these two keywords with -moz-
> prefix for many years, and Google Chrome has shipped them for 3 years. Our
> implementation on inline-size dimension are stable, and it'd be nicer to
> unprefix the keywords so people don't have to write both versions (i.e.
> prefixed and unprefixed) on their websites. Therefore, I think it's worth
> to unprefix them.
>
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322780
> 
>
> Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#sizing-values
>
> Platform coverage: all platforms
>
> Estimated or target release: Firefox 64
>
> Do other browser engines implement this?
> Chrome has shipped unprefixed max-content and min-content values from 46
> [1]. Safari still uses -webkit- prefixed.
>
> Preference behind which this will be implemented: n/a
> DevTools bug: n/a
>
> [1] https://caniuse.com/#feat=intrinsic-width
>
> --
> Regards,
> Boris
> ___
> 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

Intent to implement and ship: Referrer Policy for CSS

[Christoph Kerschbaumer]

We just realized we have never sent an intent to implement and ship for 
extending coverage of Referrer Policy to style sheets. Please accept my apology 
for not sending the intent-email earlier. Anyway, we are planning to ship that 
extension of Referrer Policy coverage to CSS in Firefox 64.

Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330487
Link to standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/referrer-policy/#integration-with-css

Platform coverage: everywhere.

Estimated or target release: 64

Is this feature enabled by default in sandboxed iframes? Yes, it is

DevTools bug: No devtools support.

Do other browser engines implement this? Chromium, since 59.

Is this feature restricted to secure contexts? No, it isn’t.

Cheers,
  Christoph


___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Referrer Policy for CSS

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 10/5/18 8:31 AM, Christoph Kerschbaumer wrote:

DevTools bug: No devtools support.


Though it would be nice if we had devtools support for determining the 
referrer policy that applied to a given request in general.  Do you 
happen to know whether we already do that, or have a bug on adding it?


-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Referrer Policy for CSS

[David Burns]

Are there web platform tests for this feature?

David

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 13:32, Christoph Kerschbaumer 
wrote:

> We just realized we have never sent an intent to implement and ship for
> extending coverage of Referrer Policy to style sheets. Please accept my
> apology for not sending the intent-email earlier. Anyway, we are planning
> to ship that extension of Referrer Policy coverage to CSS in Firefox 64.
>
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330487
> Link to standard:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/referrer-policy/#integration-with-css
>
> Platform coverage: everywhere.
>
> Estimated or target release: 64
>
> Is this feature enabled by default in sandboxed iframes? Yes, it is
>
> DevTools bug: No devtools support.
>
> Do other browser engines implement this? Chromium, since 59.
>
> Is this feature restricted to secure contexts? No, it isn’t.
>
> Cheers,
>   Christoph
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Referrer Policy for CSS

[Christoph Kerschbaumer]

> On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:
> 
> On 10/5/18 8:31 AM, Christoph Kerschbaumer wrote:
>> DevTools bug: No devtools support.
> 
> Though it would be nice if we had devtools support for determining the 
> referrer policy that applied to a given request in general.  Do you happen to 
> know whether we already do that, or have a bug on adding it?
> 

I agree, that would be nice. FWIW, I just filed 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1496742 



> -Boris
> ___
> 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

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Referrer Policy for CSS

[Christoph Kerschbaumer]

> On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:25 PM, David Burns  wrote:
> 
> Are there web platform tests for this feature?

Yes there are. Thomas added web platform tests within:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330487 



> 
> David
> 
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 13:32, Christoph Kerschbaumer  > wrote:
> We just realized we have never sent an intent to implement and ship for 
> extending coverage of Referrer Policy to style sheets. Please accept my 
> apology for not sending the intent-email earlier. Anyway, we are planning to 
> ship that extension of Referrer Policy coverage to CSS in Firefox 64.
> 
> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330487 
> 
> Link to standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/referrer-policy/#integration-with-css 
> 
> 
> Platform coverage: everywhere.
> 
> Estimated or target release: 64
> 
> Is this feature enabled by default in sandboxed iframes? Yes, it is
> 
> DevTools bug: No devtools support.
> 
> Do other browser engines implement this? Chromium, since 59.
> 
> Is this feature restricted to secure contexts? No, it isn’t.
> 
> Cheers,
>   Christoph
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: Intent to ship: unprefixed max-content and min-content for css sizing properties

[Boris Chiou]

The web platform tests only check if the parser could accept the keywords
in css/css-sizing/parsing. About the rendering results of keywords, I
cannot find any reftest in css-sizing or in css-boxing in wpt. Both Gecko
and Blink put the reftests in their repos, instead of wpt. This is another
problem for now. If we could make all keywords match the spec, it would be
easier to move all of our tests into wpt.

For now, it seem there are some concerns about shipping this keywords, so
I'd like to add a pref for them. At least we could support both unprefixed
and prefixed versions.

Regards,
Boris


On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:36 AM Boris Chiou  wrote:

> The web platform tests only check if the parser could accept the keywords
> in css/css-sizing/parsing. About the rendering results of keywords, I
> cannot find any reftest in css-sizing or in css-boxing in wpt. Both Gecko
> and Blink put the reftests in their repos, instead of wpt. This is another
> problem for now. If we could make all keywords match the spec, it would be
> easier to move all of our tests into wpt.
>
> For now, it seem there are some concerns about shipping this keywords, so
> I'd like to add a pref for them. At least we could support both unprefixed
> and prefixed versions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Boris
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:12 AM David Burns  wrote:
>
>> Are there any web platform tests for this feature?
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 20:49, Boris Chiou  wrote:
>>
>>> Summary:
>>> `max-content` and `min-content` are sizing values for width, min-width,
>>> max-width, height, min-height, max-height, inline-size, min-inline-size,
>>> max-inline-size, and flex-basis. We support these two keywords with -moz-
>>> prefix for many years, and Google Chrome has shipped them for 3 years.
>>> Our
>>> implementation on inline-size dimension are stable, and it'd be nicer to
>>> unprefix the keywords so people don't have to write both versions (i.e.
>>> prefixed and unprefixed) on their websites. Therefore, I think it's worth
>>> to unprefix them.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322780
>>> 
>>>
>>> Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing/#sizing-values
>>>
>>> Platform coverage: all platforms
>>>
>>> Estimated or target release: Firefox 64
>>>
>>> Do other browser engines implement this?
>>> Chrome has shipped unprefixed max-content and min-content values from 46
>>> [1]. Safari still uses -webkit- prefixed.
>>>
>>> Preference behind which this will be implemented: n/a
>>> DevTools bug: n/a
>>>
>>> [1] https://caniuse.com/#feat=intrinsic-width
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Boris
>>> ___
>>> 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