Intent to implement and ship: animationcancel event

2017-02-10 Thread Mantaroh Yoshinaga
Summary: Adds a new event that fires when an animation is terminated without finishing normally (e.g. element is made display:none, animation-name property is updated etc.). This parallels the recently added transitioncancel event and allows authors to know that they should not keep waiting for an

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread Frederik Braun
On 10.02.2017 01:09, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017, at 04:29 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: >> Will this also prevent loading downloaded .swf files into Firefox? This >> is >>> useful for running Flash games, which tend to work best in the browser >>> (some media players also support load

Re: Is there somewhere to get a report of new test failures from a web-platform-tests sync?

2017-02-10 Thread James Graham
On 10/02/17 06:34, Brian Birtles wrote: I don't expect James to file bugs for all the new failures he encounters when syncing (and I suspect if he did, many of them would end up being marked invalid/duplicate because they're features we don't implement yet), but is there somewhere we can get a re

Re: Do we need to run web-platform-tests --manifest-update when touching existing tests?

2017-02-10 Thread James Graham
On 10/02/17 06:27, Brian Birtles wrote: Hi, It seems like the MANIFEST.json for web platform tests now includes a checksum of test file contents. As a result, if you run './mach web-platform-tests --manifest-update yer' on a clean checkout of m-c you're likely to get a bunch of changes to MANIFE

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
I thought I enumerated the harm at first, but I'll elaborate a little. 1) Flash doesn't know about and breaks our "current and subdirectory only" file: origin policy. 2) Flash is a high-risk attack surface: if you can get somebody to download a SWF they can probably own your system. We don't have

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:36 AM, 段垚 wrote: > > 在 2017/2/10 1:28, Benjamin Smedberg 写道: > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:26 AM, 段垚 wrote: >> >> Is this just preventing auto-loading (like "click to play") or completely >>> disable Flash for non-http(s) contents? >>> >>> This is completely disabling

Re: Project Stockwell - February 2017 update

2017-02-10 Thread Mike Conley
There's good feedback in here. Are some of these known, jmaher? Are any intentional choices, or should we just start turning these into bugs to get fixed? On 08/02/2017 12:33 AM, Bill McCloskey wrote: > Hi Joel, > I spent about an hour tonight trying to debug a test failure, and I'm > writing this

Rust 1.15.1 required to build

2017-02-10 Thread Ralph Giles
We've updated the minimum-required rust version for mozilla-central to 1.15.1. This version just reached the stable channel, so you'll need to update your build environment. You should be able to do this just by typing: rustup update stable If you don't have rustup, you can get it by running `

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread tom
On Friday, 10 February 2017 08:32:27 UTC-6, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I thought I enumerated the harm at first, but I'll elaborate a little. > > 1) Flash doesn't know about and breaks our "current and subdirectory only" > file: origin policy. > > 2) Flash is a high-risk attack surface: if you c

Re: Changing the representation of rectangles in platform code

2017-02-10 Thread Milan Sreckovic
First step needs to happen completely before the second step does, so I guess the danger is that we start and give up before we get to step 2. I don't think that will happen, but it is something we should always think about. Third step - sure, I can see this not getting completed - examining

Quantum Render builds now on m-c

2017-02-10 Thread Kartikaya Gupta
(cross-posted to dev-platform and dev-tech-gfx) This is just a heads up that earlier today we merged the graphics branch to m-c, so Quantum Render builds can now be done on central if you put --enable-webrender in your mozconfig. We will be running a limited set of builds (linux64 only) and tests

Re: Changing the representation of rectangles in platform code

2017-02-10 Thread Jeff Gilbert
Reducing overflow risk and simplifying intersection both seem worth it, but godspeed whoever works on this! On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > First step needs to happen completely before the second step does, so I > guess the danger is that we start and give up before we

Re: Changing the representation of rectangles in platform code

2017-02-10 Thread Botond Ballo
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > First step needs to happen completely before the second step does, so I > guess the danger is that we start and give up before we get to step 2. I > don't think that will happen, but it is something we should always think > about. It may

Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

2017-02-10 Thread Mats Palmgren
Summary: add support for the CSS UI property 'appearance:none | auto' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'. 'appearance:none' works exactly as '-moz-appearance:none' -- it turns off the native theme for elements that have one. 'appearance:auto' (the initial value)

Re: Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

2017-02-10 Thread Tantek Çelik
Makes sense Mats, exactly as you divided it up. Thanks for pushing this. Note: the 'appearance' property was previously in a CSS3 UI CR: * https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#appearance Where it was stable for nearly 8 years but dropped subsequently due to lack of interop (actual diver

Re: Quantum Render builds now on m-c

2017-02-10 Thread Chris Peterson
Awesome news! Building Quantum Render in mozilla-central and running even a subset of our regular tests is a big step towards shipping. chris On 2/10/2017 1:11 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: (cross-posted to dev-platform and dev-tech-gfx) This is just a heads up that earlier today we merged the

Re: Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

2017-02-10 Thread Justin Dolske
Do we have any data on existing content usage of -moz-appearance? Or is this a "ship it and see what breaks" kind of thing? I have the vague recollection that this is something that might have non-trivial usage (especially and specifically "-moz-appearance: none"), so just want to make sure that's

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread 段垚
在 2017/2/10 22:34, Benjamin Smedberg 写道: On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:36 AM, 段垚 wrote: 在 2017/2/10 1:28, Benjamin Smedberg 写道: On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:26 AM, 段垚 wrote: Is this just preventing auto-loading (like "click to play") or completely disable Flash for non-http(s) contents? This

Re: Intent to implement and ship: only allow Flash on HTTP/HTTPS sites

2017-02-10 Thread 段垚
在 2017/2/11 2:26, t...@ritter.vg 写道: On Friday, 10 February 2017 08:32:27 UTC-6, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: I thought I enumerated the harm at first, but I'll elaborate a little. 1) Flash doesn't know about and breaks our "current and subdirectory only" file: origin policy. 2) Flash is a high

Re: Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

2017-02-10 Thread Mats Palmgren
On 02/11/2017 12:28 AM, Justin Dolske wrote: Do we have any data on existing content usage of -moz-appearance? Or is this a "ship it and see what breaks" kind of thing? I'm not aware of any data that would be useful here. Data on how often -moz-appearance is used isn't very useful since it doe

Re: Is there somewhere to get a report of new test failures from a web-platform-tests sync?

2017-02-10 Thread Brian Birtles
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:04 PM, James Graham wrote: > I don't know what triage-center is, but increasing the visibility of > failures in web-platform-tests is certainly something that I think I should > work on; we are currently letting compat problems slip through > unnecessarily. If there is a

Re: Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

2017-02-10 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/10/17 8:03 PM, Mats Palmgren wrote: I'm guessing Firefox add-ons might not bother with anything but -moz-appearance though, but I assume those counts as chrome sheets, so the property will continue to work there as before. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) "Chrome sheets", for

Re: Do we need to run web-platform-tests --manifest-update when touching existing tests?

2017-02-10 Thread Brian Birtles
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:37 PM, James Graham wrote: >> Should we be requiring people to update the MANIFEST.json whenever >> they touch a file in testing/web-platform/tests (i.e. not just when >> they add/remove files)? > > > This is too much to ask of people; it was effectively required when the

Re: Is there somewhere to get a report of new test failures from a web-platform-tests sync?

2017-02-10 Thread Emma Humphries
I'm glad to know that people are using Triage Center! Pull requests would be gratefully accepted, and if you don't have time, if you want to point me at relevant APIs and give me a spec for what you need, I can see what I can do, or recruit helpers. -- Emma On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Brian