Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > Web Platform Working Group: > > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > > > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > > say as part of

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

On Monday 2015-08-10 12:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > We should probably also voice opposition to HTML Imports in its > current form. What's the rationale for opposing it? -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla htt

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing revised charters for: > > Web Platform Working Group: > http://www.w3.org/2015/07/web-platform-wg.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Jul/0020.html ... > > The Web Platform Working Group

Re: New policy: 48-hour backouts for major Talos regressions

I did see the ts, paint regression. This happened on 4 different platforms and was backed out for telemetry issues about 5 pushes later: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1190bc7b862d and the backout: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/59ad2812d3c7 By the

Re: New policy: 48-hour backouts for major Talos regressions

kmoir filed https://bugzil.la/1192994 this week to hook SETA up to talos. SETA seems like the best tool we have right now to both reduce the overall test burden and increase the reliability of the tests we do run. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platf

Re: I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please. (Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?)

On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding? Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again. While most of it is the same, there's quite a lot of value-added stuff (JIT, AltiVec) and some things I turned off (plugins, webapprt),

I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.

Bug 1034999 made XUL overlays ignore the hash portion of urls. Comment 12 has this note: "See related bug 305393 where different search strings must be treated separately. But I think different hashes is probably ok to unify." Bug 305393 asks that overlays ignore query strings. But this was WONTF

Re: I think XUL overlays should also ignore query strings.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Philip Chee wrote: > The first question that occurs to me is what is the rationale? Can we > revisit this in 2015 to see if the original reason still holds? Well, we want to get rid of XUL. I'm not sure it makes much sense to revisit any of its design decisions at