Re: Intent to remove: do_check_*, do_print, do_execute_soon, do_register_cleanup

2017-12-21 Thread Michael de Boer
<3 Thanks so much for taking this, Florian! > On 19 Dec 2017, at 20:14, Florian Quèze wrote: > > In order to reduce the confusion for people writing tests using both > xpcshell and mochitests, I'm currently working on removing the old > do_* helpers that have an obvious nicer equivalent. > > Th

Device Orientation API future

2017-12-21 Thread Jonathan Kingston
Following the intent to deprecate filed on Sunday for the Ambient Light and Proximity sensor APIs , we propose to discuss the future of the Device Orientation API. DeviceOrientation

Re: Announcing the next Extended Support Release of Firefox - ESR60 with policy engine

2017-12-21 Thread Luke Crouch
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-6, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > First, as Dave Camp mentioned during the Firefox All Hands, we are started > some developments to improve > our support for enterprise users. > More information can be found on the wiki: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firef

Re: Announcing the next Extended Support Release of Firefox - ESR60 with policy engine

2017-12-21 Thread Mike Kaply
We currently do not plan to allow arbitrary preferences, but if certain preferences are important, we can add policies for them. We could also add policies that set groups of preferences for specific purposes. Mike On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Luke Crouch wrote: > On Wednesday, December 2

Re: Device Orientation API future

2017-12-21 Thread Blair MacIntyre
(I’m CC:ing a few of the MR team folks, although I’m sure many of them are on the dev-platform list already). Speaking for myself (not the official stance of the WebVR team), I share these concerns and like the trajectory you suggest. I would HOPE that in the long run (some number of years?)

Re: Announcing the next Extended Support Release of Firefox - ESR60 with policy engine

2017-12-21 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 12/21/17 9:09 AM, Mike Kaply wrote: > We currently do not plan to allow arbitrary preferences, but if certain > preferences are important, we can add policies for them. > > We could also add policies that set groups of preferences for specific > purposes. Great idea. I like Luke's suggestion o