Specifically on the subject of what URL spec to reference, I think it
should be Mozilla's position (which I'm willing to represent) that the
W3C HTML5 spec reference the dated URL spec[1] instead of the
copy/paste/modified(even if informatively) W3C WebApps URL spec.
[1] https://whatwg.org/specs/u
On 9/22/14, 1:18 PM, James Graham wrote:
I think you'd get a better result by asking for agreement from all the
relevant implementors that they felt that the spec was implementable.
The problem was that in some cases this was more a less a non-goal (in
some cases an anti-goal) for the spec edi
On 21/09/14 22:19, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/21/14, 9:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
> More interestingly, either the specification is implementable or not.
> Again, because once the REC is published everyone goes home and never
> touches that document again.
>
> The two implementations condition wa
On Monday 2014-09-22 13:55 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I agree with your general sentiment but I would qualify it. If you
> are participating *and* have made a bona fide attempt at fixing the
> issues you see with the group then you can certainly distance
> yourself from the group's actions.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On 20/09/2014 17:26 , Kyle Huey wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
>>>
>>>
>>> Here the W
On 22/09/14 13:16, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I can't say it has brought about a revolution yet, but it has certainly
> helped change minds. It's hard to argue against a continuously updated
> test suite. It's hard to imagine that such an animal wouldn't find spec
> bugs in addition to implementation b
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Right. So I can't speak for the people who are working on that, but I can
> vouch that they are open to feedback and have no foul intention whatsoever.
I've yet to receive replies to the feedback I gave when it was announced.
> Overall, Ann
On 22/09/2014 15:04 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
If that was the goal, changing the "Goals" section of the spec to cast
doubts about whether the direction the W3C envisions for the spec is
consistent with
On 22/09/14 12:43, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM, James Graham wrote:
>> leaving the remaining participants to debate topics of
>> little consequence.
>
> FWIW, this bit is being spun into Twitter propaganda about Mozilla not
> caring about accessibility, so it might be
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>
>>> I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token
>>> of
>>> good faith and normalisation, adding a small co
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
> good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
> cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing the "Goals" section of the spec to cast
d
On 21/09/2014 00:29 , Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 21 sept. 2014 à 03:23, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
The important part to me about implementations is that
implementations shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5
REC once said bogosity if fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1
(with the former m
Hi James,
On 21/09/2014 15:00 , James Graham wrote:
Obviously I agree that good testing of implementations is key to
interoperability. I also agree that we should encourage vendors to
create and run shared tests for the web technologies that we implement.
I am substantially less convinced that t
Hi Kyle,
On 20/09/2014 17:26 , Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;)
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40
On 20/09/2014 11:20 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be
meaningfully implementable and/or testable.
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that, yet hasn't invested any
meaningful effort into cre
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On 20/09/14 03:46, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 9/19/14, 8:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
>>> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>>
>> The biggest issue I have wit
Hi David,
On 20/09/2014 02:23 , L. David Baron wrote:
One of the open issues being raised in this review is the status of
the spec's normative reference to the URL specification. The
specification currently references http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ ; it
might be possible for us to suggest that it in
Great work Chris! Thanks for linking to the study; the link gives me error
400, github links are tricky:
2014-09-22 4:06 GMT-04:00 Chris Peterson :
> [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bjacob/builtin-unreachable-study
>
Repo link: https://github.com/bjacob/builtin-unreachable-study
Notes file
Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing.
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak branch.
This will allow us to test installing and updating before landing on
mozilla-central.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046906
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org
MFBT's MOZ_ASSUME_UNREACHABLE macro has been removed. People mistakenly
used it as a debug assertion, but it was actually a compiler
optimization hint that invoked possibly dangerous undefined behavior if
actually hit. For example, Benoit Jacob's detailed tests [1] show that
gcc 4.6 can generat
> -Original Message-
> From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
> bounces+rstrong=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Henrik
Skupin
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 12:24 AM
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: Support for 32bit on OS X and testing infrastructure
Robert Strong wrote on 09/19/2014 06:59 PM:
> Regarding dropping support, Silverlight on Mac does not support 64 bit and
> we run it using 32 bit. So at the very least we will need html5 for sites
> like Netflix before we can drop 32 bit support on OS X.
I see. So I will investigate what's necessa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi David,
On 09/20/2014 02:23 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ HTML5
>
> There's a call for review to W3
24 matches
Mail list logo
