As of Firefox 45 we intend to turn referrerpolicy attribute on by default
on all platforms. It has been developed behind the
network.http.enablePerElementReferrer preference. Other UAs shipping this
or intending to ship it are Chrome and Opera [1].
The referrerpolicy attribute as specified in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2015 10:58 AM, Franziskus Kiefer wrote:
> As of Firefox 45 we intend to turn referrerpolicy attribute on by
> default on all platforms. It has been developed behind the
> network.http.enablePerElementReferrer preference. Other UAs
> shipping
There are web-platform-tests [1], though they're not up to date with the
spec. In particular, they still use |referrer| as attribute name instead of
|referrerpolicy|. The idl name is referrerPolicy, is that the
capitalisation issue you mean?
So there are no tests for interoperability at the moment
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
> As far as I see, there are no objections to removing the ISO-2022-JP-2
> variant as long as the ISO-2022-JP is maintained.
Cool. This intent is indeed scoped to the -2 stuff only.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On
Hi everyone,
Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Manual QA
team last week (Week 48: November 23 - November 27).
Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the
plans for the current week are available at:
https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/
On 02/12/2015 11:16, Franziskus Kiefer wrote:
> they still use |referrer| as attribute name instead of
> |referrerpolicy|.
I randomly ran into this today while looking at something completely
different...
Where was the name changed? There is browser frontend code that still
uses the old name:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:25 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:04:30 PM UTC-8, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > Oh well. Bummer.
> >
> > / Jonas
>
> If it cheers you up any, the 2.0 API that replaces the U2F API uses
> promises - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/SUBM-fido-web-api-20151120/
Where is the right place to ask questions about this and file bugs?
mozilla.dev.builds? I have a series of use-cases that I need to solve,
and it's still very unclear to me whether taskcluster is the right
solution for these, or how I'd solve them. Here are a few examples:
In order to correlat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/2015 03:48 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> I think we would treat this just like we treat other early-stage
> things that get shipped, gradually turning it off when the real
> thing shows up.
That would mean only shipping it on Nightly and maybe
On 02/12/15 11:16, Franziskus Kiefer wrote:
There are web-platform-tests [1], though they're not up to date with the
spec. In particular, they still use |referrer| as attribute name instead of
|referrerpolicy|. The idl name is referrerPolicy, is that the
capitalisation issue you mean?
So there a
On 12/2/15 8:53 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
I don't remember what the current conventional wisdom about
prefixing is, but I would be open to shipping with a prefix if
people thought that would ease pain in the eventual transition.
No. Nonononononononono.
This is the conventional wisdom. Prefixes end up
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 11/25/15 5:51 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>
>> After reading this article as well as some introduction from the
>> wikipedia, it seems to me that "xorshift+" is probably the best
>> algorithm to adopt, because it is simple, fast, and passes a
Hi All, great news !
TL;DR version:
--
I love U2F, I love Firefox
FIDO U2F is here to stay.
FIDO 2.0 do not exist and will not replace U2F.
FIDO U2F is really great.
Please implement FIDO U2F.
Please please please implement TLS Channel ID Binding support
(important part of FIDO U2F s
Thanks for hard the work on this! I'm happy you're working on improving the
scrolling.
Since the change, I've noticed a few things:
1. Reader mode's toolbar now sometimes seems to jump up and down several times.
2. Deceleration takes too long to happen (the page seems to just float for far
to
In case you missed it, Kev Needham (the Add-Ons Product Manager) has put
together a blog post on this topic:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/01/de-coupling-reviews-from-signing-unlisted-add-ons/
He also sent the same information to the addons-user-experience mailing
list:
https://group
Hi Freddie, glad to see people so excited about it.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:22 AM, wrote:
>
> So, let's forget about 2 for now, it is not a real thing... and
> well.. let's forget it. (If you read both specs you should see
> real differences and problems...)
>
> There are probably other question
Thanks for trying it out and reporting these issues! I've filed them
as separate bugs - bug 1229840, bug 1229839, and bug 1229841. We
should be able to address 2 and 3 by tuning some prefs, 1 will take a
bit more investigation.
Cheers,
kats
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM, wrote:
> Thanks for h
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 09:52 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> In order to correlate telemetry data, I need a time series of all
> mozilla-central nightly builds (with version and buildid). It's
> important that when there are multiple nightlies on a given date, that I
> get all of them.
You shou
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Are you thinking of something like WebUSB?
> (https://reillyeon.github.io/webusb/)? This is something we've looked at
> a bit but we're still trying to wrap our heads around the security
> implications.
>
Where are we discussing that? I'd re
On 02.12.2015 18:53, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> Are you thinking of something like WebUSB?
>> (https://reillyeon.github.io/webusb/)? This is something we've looked at
>> a bit but we're still trying to wrap our heads around the security
>>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Robert O'Callahan
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> Are you thinking of something like WebUSB?
>> (https://reillyeon.github.io/webusb/)? This is something we've looked at
>> a bit but we're still trying to wrap our heads around the
So we can keep track of all of the work going on with eslinting the
world I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229856.
Please add any bugs that you're working on there and look there if
you're wanting to work on something.
I've also just landed the default eslint rules for brow
On 2015-12-02 9:48 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:04:30 PM UTC-8, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Oh well. Bummer.
/ Jonas
If it cheers you up any, the 2.0 API that replaces the U2F API uses
promises - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2
On 12/1/15 3:48 PM, Chris AtLee wrote:
Localized builds should be at e.g.
gecko.v2.mozilla-central.latest.firefox-l10n.win32-opt
And yes, once we've got the naming structure nailed down, wget-en-US should
change to use the index.
I would expect l10n nightlies to be under nightly?
How does one
Thanks again Gijs for pointing this out and the quick review. The frontend
code is fixed (see bug 1187357).
The web-platform tests are tracked in bug 1168540. But there seems very
little work on them recently (in the last 5 month). But we will follow up
on this.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Ja
> > There are probably other questions Mozilla Core Team should ask to
> > themselves :
> >
> > - Having a greater/larger HID Support, outside the FIDO U2F scope ?
> > (This allows web services to communicate with HID devices - i.e.
> > that's how some cryptocurrencies hardware wallets are using HI
On 12/02/2015 07:25 AM, ryan.sle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:04:30 PM UTC-8, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Oh well. Bummer.
/ Jonas
If it cheers you up any, the 2.0 API that replaces the U2F API uses promises -
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2015/SUBM-fido-web-api-20151120/
R
On 12/02/2015 03:23 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
The FIDO Alliance has been developing standards for hardware-based
authentication of users by websites [1]. Their work is getting significant
traction, so the Mozilla Foundation has decided to join the FIDO Alliance.
Work has begun in the W3C to crea
Le lundi 9 novembre 2015 18:29:20 UTC+1, Michael Schwartz (m...@gluu.org) a
écrit :
> Hi guys... if you need a FIDO U2F server to test against, the Gluu Server has
> endpoints built in. Its really easy to deploy on Ubuntu / Centos:
> http://www.gluu.org/docs/admin-guide/deployment/
>
> Also, I
>As I said in the other email,
>I don't understand how this could be implemented when the spec has left the
>>key piece undefined, as far as I see.
You are completely right ! For now, FIDO 2 is currently being written (far far
far from finished) and can't be implemented, so let's focus on exis
Hello,
I'm happy to announce the release 2.0.0 of mozregression!
This is a major release, which uses a new bisection algorithm that makes it
much easier to use. Instead of forcing the user to specify a branch to
bisect against or defaulting to mozilla-inbound, mozregression now tries to
detect me
In this case, latest is just latest from wherever. I agree that l10n
nightlies should be under 'nightly' as well.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Axel Hecht wrote:
> On 12/1/15 3:48 PM, Chris AtLee wrote:
>
>> Localized builds should be at e.g.
>> gecko.v2.mozilla-central.latest.firefox-l10n.win
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Frederic Martin
wrote:
> > > There are probably other questions Mozilla Core Team should ask to
> > > themselves :
> > >
> > > - Having a greater/larger HID Support, outside the FIDO U2F scope ?
> > > (This allows web services to communicate with HID devices - i.e.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
>
> I'd really like to see WebUSB with USB device IDs are bound to specific
>> origins (through a registry for legacy devices and through the USB protocol
>> extensions defined in t
Just want to point out Julien also added a mach command wrapper for
mozregression that installs it and everything. Just add 'mach' in front
of his examples to try it out.
Thanks for all the work here Julien!
On 02/12/15 04:42 PM, Julien Pagès wrote:
Hello,
I'm happy to announce the release 2.0
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, smaug wrote:
> I don't understand how 1) could be implemented when the spec has left the key
> piece undefined, as far as I see.
> As the spec puts it "This specification does not describe how such a port is
> made available to RP web pages, as
On 12/2/15 5:42 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, smaug wrote:
I don't understand how 1) could be implemented when the spec has left the key
piece undefined, as far as I see.
As the spec puts it "This specification does not describe how such a port is
m
Le mercredi 2 décembre 2015 23:43:00 UTC+1, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, smaug wrote:
> > I don't understand how 1) could be implemented when the spec has left the
> > key piece undefined, as far as I see.
> > As the spec puts it "This specification d
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 3:08:44 PM UTC-8, Frederic Martin wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't understand why you are denying the evidence, anyone
> at Fido alliance will confirm that even non-public FIDO 2 drafts are far
> far far from finished. Regarding the glimpse that was published in W3c
>
+mobile-firefox-dev
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Kartikaya Gupta
wrote:
> Thanks for all your work in making this happen! I've used some of
> these commands recently and they work much better than they used to
> for Fennec :)
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Geoffrey Brown
> wrote:
>
On 12/2/15 6:48 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
My initial intent was to propose implementing [1], then implementing [2]
when it's ready. After all, there's a lot in common, and as you say, the
W3C version will be much nicer.
This seems like like a strange path to take. Why implement both?
From el
Thank you, Julien, this is amazing!
On 2015-12-02 4:42 PM, Julien Pagès wrote:
Hello,
I'm happy to announce the release 2.0.0 of mozregression!
This is a major release, which uses a new bisection algorithm that makes it
much easier to use. Instead of forcing the user to specify a branch to
bis
On 2015-12-02 3:16 PM, Franziskus Kiefer wrote:
The web-platform tests are tracked in bug 1168540. But there seems very
little work on them recently (in the last 5 month). But we will follow up
on this.
We have recently been working on fixing up web-platform-tests in order
to keep up with spec
> That said, I think we're in violent agreement that the specs are far, far,
> far from finished - and I'm unclear whether we're in agreement that one is
> under active development, while the other is a technological dead end which,
> through a series of unfortunate events, happened to have been
Le jeudi 3 décembre 2015 01:28:51 UTC+1, Justin Dolske a écrit :
> On 12/2/15 6:48 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> > My initial intent was to propose implementing [1], then implementing [2]
> > when it's ready. After all, there's a lot in common, and as you say, >the
> > W3C version will be much n
I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
I am looking for it to developing mutli-process based firefox addons/apps
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
47 matches
Mail list logo
