Re: Intent to ship: MouseEvent.offsetX/Y

2015-02-27 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > Oh, another issue is that I've followed the spec and made offsetX/Y > > doubles, whereas Blink is integers, which introduces a small amount > compat > > risk. > > > > IE also

Intent to and unship: SSLv3

2015-02-27 Thread Masatoshi Kimura
Summary: SSLv3 is an outdated and known broken security protocol. I'll remove the support from Gecko completely. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1106470 Spec: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00 Platform coverage: All Target release: Gecko 39. Chrome

Re: Intent to ship: MouseEvent.offsetX/Y

2015-02-27 Thread Jeff Muizelaar
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Oh, another issue is that I've followed the spec and made offsetX/Y > doubles, whereas Blink is integers, which introduces a small amount compat > risk. > IE also uses integers. Wouldn't it be better to change the spec to follow the exis

Re: Intent to ship: MouseEvent.offsetX/Y

2015-02-27 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Summary: CSSOM Views specify offsetX/Y properties on MouseEvent. Other > browsers implement them. Many sites use it with a fallback for Firefox, but > I've found at least one site that doesn't have a fallback. It's trivial to > implement

Intent to ship: MouseEvent.offsetX/Y

2015-02-27 Thread Robert O'Callahan
Summary: CSSOM Views specify offsetX/Y properties on MouseEvent. Other browsers implement them. Many sites use it with a fallback for Firefox, but I've found at least one site that doesn't have a fallback. It's trivial to implement. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69787 Spec: ht

Re: 32-bit Windows builds will fail.

2015-02-27 Thread Mike Hoye
On 2015-02-27 8:46 AM, Ben Hearsum wrote: On 2015-02-26 05:57 PM, Mike Hoye wrote: Instead, I propose that we stand up a variety of old, slow, minimum-spec "approved" development boxes, build on them daily. If forward progress means we need to abandon a category of developers' machines, I ask th

Re: 32-bit Windows builds will fail.

2015-02-27 Thread Ben Hearsum
On 2015-02-26 05:57 PM, Mike Hoye wrote: > Instead, I propose that we stand up a variety of old, slow, minimum-spec > "approved" development boxes, build on them daily. If forward progress > means we need to abandon a category of developers' machines, I ask that > we try to do that with as much tra