changeset is pushed to all trees, and the trees
reopened.
I think this is in violation of
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriffing/Job_Visibility_Policy#Must_avoid_patterns_known_to_cause_non_deterministic_failures
(see the first bullet point).
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http
to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
for the first time at this stage.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I
through
Thursday, September 10.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I
.
Any suggestion?
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
, or to find which of the blockers
doesn't respond at all.
Cheers,
David
On 30/07/15 22:20, James Burke wrote:
In talking to Wilson Page, he mentioned something like a
document.pauseLayout() document.resumeLayout(), not sure if there are
existing thoughts around that.
If that seemed workable
On 24/07/15 11:38, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think we should allow addons to implement something like this. But I
don't think it's something that we should let apps do.
/ Jonas
So Dropbox, Cozy Cloud, etc. should be add-ons instead of apps? This
strikes me as odd.
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller
On Thursday 2015-07-23 17:54 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:43 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
I'm not sure it's really a fight I want to take on right now,
though.
Trying to kill things at W3C has generally not seemed worth the effort
to me. It's better
inactive (e.g., EXI, XForms, as far as I can tell) should
be ended than to make that argument for groups that actually have
active participation and interest (whether relevant to the Web or
not).
I'm not sure it's really a fight I want to take on right now,
though.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron
-facing URIs, but for file:// URIs, these
involve actually accessing files.
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
(this)]
];
---
It should work in Firefox today (at least the Symbol.iterator and
computed object prop parts. Not 100% sure about the array comprehension
as I haven't tested)
David
Le 22/07/2015 14:42, Paolo Amadini a écrit :
On 7/21/2015 12:07 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
Aside: Please also try
If I recall correctly, the difficulty with the OS.File removal is that
some clients of this code were taking advantage of the old API in ways
that do not match the new one. I will try and take another look at it
over the summer.
Cheers,
David
On 21/07/15 13:07, Tom Schuster wrote:
Hello!
We
on the
ballot form, though I suppose we could do so in prose.)
(My inclination is at minimum to explicitly abstain, with comments
that they shouldn't expect browser implementation.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https
that we are doing I/O
there.
- Kyle
Ah, good to know. Still slightly annoying, but I'll sleep better.
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
May I request that the major parts of this not happen until we have a
blame that can see through such changes.
Last I checked, gps had some ideas in that space but lacked time to
implement.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 03:23 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 7/8/2015 7:31 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
of those are assigning to out-params that are
references rather than pointers.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I
marginally, and rather ugly.
I also agree with Eric that `foo_` is somewhat nicer to read than
`mFoo`, which introduces a weird cAmelCase, but I can live with it. For
what it's worth, `this-foo` is also nice.
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
+1 for removing this. Gecko's use is inconsistent, and outside of Gecko code
that does use it, I've never seen it used in any other codebase. I've never
gone to another project and thought, I miss decorating everything in a way
that changes capitalization and impairs canonical naming.
Reasons
+1 for removing this. Gecko's use is inconsistent, and outside of Gecko code
that does use it, I've never seen it used in any other codebase. I've never
gone to another project and thought, I miss decorating everything in a way
that changes capitalization and impairs canonical naming.
Reasons
On 06/07/15 22:48, Vladan D wrote:
KaiRo pointed out another reason to reduce shutdown hang rates on IRC: it's
lousy UX. The crash-reporter dialog pops up a minute after the user closed
Firefox
That's bug 1137941, but how would that reduce shutdown hangs?
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Should fixing shutdown hangs be higher priority?
And if so, should we allow features with shutdown hangs to be released?
I admit to skimming over shutdown-hang signatures when looking at
topcrash lists. In my experience they're often longstanding issues that
are difficult to diagnose and
by fixing the causes of hangs
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
-Wshadow might be easier to turn on that
gcc's, though (see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=800659#c11 ).
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd
to implement them; in
those cases we're generally already dealing with a bunch of content
that doesn't work in Firefox, especially on mobile, because of the
lack of those features.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https
I'm a big fan of it working, because I believe that it's a key component
to handling correctly slow scripts.
Cheers,
David
On 29/06/15 02:14, Nathan Froyd wrote:
If you are referring to bug 715376 (and related), those patches are
still in my queue, fully rebased. We only need to decide
Out of curiosity: can these streams be used as a base for reactive
programming? Or is it an entirely separate notion of streams?
Cheers,
David
On 19/06/15 20:09, Benjamin Kelly wrote:
Also, I have setup a session on streams in the DOM room at Whistler:
http://juneworkweekwhistler2015
to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review. (This is a second review of a
new charter; it's been revised since the first review.)
(Really this time! Sorry for the incorrect subject line when I sent
out the Web Performance charter.)
-David
--
턞 L. David
to make
comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage.)
If it's something we're happy with, it is probably worth voting in
support.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla
be
done more easily with a ServiceWorker.
Cheers,
David
On 16/06/15 17:24, Paul Rouget wrote:
In bug 1174733, I'm proposing a patch to implement the equivalent of
Google's webview.executeScript:
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/tags/webview#method-executeScript
This will be useful to any
the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Wednesday, June 17.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review. (Given that we implement some
of the group's specs, it seems like we ought to have something to
say.)
-David
--
턞 L
On Friday 2015-06-12 17:23 -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
On 6/12/15 13:27, L. David Baron wrote:
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Performance Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html
https://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/
https://lists.w3.org
or objections through
Wednesday, June 17.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review. (Given that we implement some
of the group's specs, it seems like we ought to have something to
say.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http
), we need to make sure that warnings are as
actionable as possible. One way to do this is to progressively convert
each the warning into either a real assertion or into something that, by
design, needs to be whitelisted individually (and documented).
Best regards,
David
--
David Rajchenbach
of most-voted-for bugs to see
if there were important things to prioritize that we were forgetting
about, but it's probably been a few years since I've done so.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org
sanity in our
tests and in some parts of our codebase.
Best regards,
David
On 10/06/15 06:39, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2015-06-09 8:33 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Does anyone know of a case where we had a regression that traded one
assertion for another? I don't.
I don't either. Which is why
@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
should most
likely cause real assertion failures.
Cheers,
David
On 08/06/15 19:09, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2015-06-05 6:08 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
This API covers all the needs I have encountered for warnings so far in
JS code. I don't think it's terribly different in C++ code
when they fail intermittently. I'm not a huge fan of adding more
ways for tests to fail if people aren't willing to actually do something
about it when they do.
-Ryan
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing
should have 0./)
(also a regexp)
This API covers all the needs I have encountered for warnings so far in
JS code. I don't think it's terribly different in C++ code.
Cheers,
David
On 05/06/15 00:14, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Families of warnings? I don't really understand what you mean. Also,
looking
What exactly are you trying to do?
On 05/06/15 09:22, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote:
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
, assertion report stack traces in debug builds,
which is excruciatingly slow, so we have had to switch them to be
warnings in at least some cases (see bug 756045 for example.)
Are you talking about our weird non-fatal assertions or actual fatal
assertions?
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
experience than us and who
will stumble upon every possible subtle error just because they don't
know our codebase.
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https
.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense
often obscures information.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom
to have `Error` cause test failures unless explicitly whitelisted.
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
wasteful.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/developers_guide_v2
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
beefed up browser-wide ServiceWorker? Could add-on authors similarly
implement, say, image-blocking for slow-connections using a similar
mechanism? What about anti-viruses, which could possibly perform scans
on e.g. swf before it is executed, using js-ctypes and ServiceWorkers?
Cheers,
David
Not sure that's part of the benchmarks, but creating a file:// or
chrome:// URI currently causes main thread I/O (bug 890712, iirc).
That's certainly a big cause of slowdown.
Cheers,
David
On 06/05/15 04:07, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/5/15 9:58 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
Performance.
Note
Is this supposed to be on at all times? If so, we need to connect this
somehow with slow add-on detection.
Cheers,
David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https
Two cents: evolve is Good for You (tm).
Cheers,
David
On 05/05/15 22:12, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Mercurial 3.4 was released on May 1.
If you are an evolve user, I highly recommend upgrading for performance
reasons. Everyone else should consider upgrading. But you may want to
wait for 3.4.1
On Wednesday 2015-04-08 17:03 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
HTML5 Web Messaging
http://www.w3.org/TR/webmessaging/
There's a call for review to W3C member companies
capabilities to provide histograms to Telemetry Servers for analysis by
data owners.
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform
By the way, I don't know if you're writing JS code or C++ code, but if
it's the former, you really should use Sqlite.jsm.
Cheers,
David
On 24/04/15 18:48, Yonggang Luo wrote:
I am currently using executeAsync to do async sqlite operation
in main thread, and running multiple executeAsync
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 3:58:17 AM UTC-4, James May wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 12:51, David Anderson @gmail.com wrote:
To get some feedback on AsyncPanZoom we are enabling it on tonight's
nightly, for Windows only. It will be re-disabled in the next nightly.
For those
the try high scores to
all trees, so that it counts inbound (etc.) landings and backouts.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
To get some feedback on AsyncPanZoom we are enabling it on tonight's nightly,
for Windows only. It will be re-disabled in the next nightly.
For those unfamiliar, APZ makes scrolling responsive by pre-rendering more
content than what is visible in the viewport [1]. This lets us present it
. This will give us a bit of recognition
(hey, I'm better than Moscow this week), plus the ability to leak our
nicknames to whomever we want.
Cheers,
David
On 22/04/15 00:45, Nick Fitzgerald wrote:
I imagine that we could show mean/median/percentiles/whatever, but you're
right that if you want
I think that you should avoid making this an exercise in marketing
Mozilla's Let's Encrypt initiative.
Perhaps that's why Richard took the time to make a comprehensive list of
all known sources of free certs, rather than just mentioning LE?
Yeah, that's what I thought when I first posted
You're pretty far off in the weeds here. I'll try to help you with some
of your misconceptions.
I pretty much knew I was. Good luck with the project, I'm looking forward to
at least no-passive attack encryption being on-by-default... I hope that you
don't get abducted by people in
http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/
http://sockpuppet.org/stuff/dnssec-qa.html
https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html
Yawn - those were all terrible articles. To summarise their points: NSA is
bad, some DNS servers are out of date, DNSSEC may be still
realistic idea. Meanwhile, HTTPS exists, is widely deployed, works,
and is the focus of this thread.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-banishes-chinas-main-digital-certificate-authority-cnnic/
Sure it works :)
___
dev-platform mailing list
Something entirely off-topic: I'd like to inform people that your replies to
popular threads like this unsigned, with only a notion of identity in an
obscure email address, makes me - and I'm sure others too - skip your message
or worse; not take it seriously.
Not everyone has the luxury
There are already multiple sources of free publicly-trusted certificates,
with more on the way.
https://www.startssl.com/
https://buy.wosign.com/free/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-universal-ssl/
https://letsencrypt.org/
I think that you should avoid making this an exercise in
Yep. That's the system working. CA does something they shouldn't, we
find out, CA is no longer trusted (perhaps for a time).
Or do you have an alternative system design where no-one ever makes a
mistake and all the actors are trustworthy?
Gerv
Yes - as I said previously. Do the existing
2) Protected by subresource integrity from a secure host
This would allow website operators to securely serve static assets from
non-HTTPS servers without MITM risk, and without breaking transparent caching
proxies.
Is that a complicated word for SHA512 HASH? :) You could envisage a new
I would politely ask you how many users you think are
both interested in, able to understand, and willing to take decisions
based on _six_ different security states in a browser?
I think this thread is about deprecating things and moving developers onto more
secure platforms. To do that,
* If we have to rely, cost of certificates must be zero. These for the simple
reason than not everyone is living in a rich industrialized country.
Certificates (and paying for them) is an artificial economy. If I register a
DNS address, I should get a certificate to go with it. Heck, last
in this example) should
be used directly.
Cheers,
David
[0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1147085
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1dfe22ca4abe
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https
where you need this behavior?
I'm a little nervous about making try builds differ from other
trees, since that just increases the risk of bustage (or bugs in
testing) that shows up in one place but not the other.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢
don't know
anything about the status of our implementation.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling
/show_bug.cgi?id=1150619 .)
-David
On Tuesday 2015-03-31 21:23 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
I just landed (on mozilla-inbound) a patch for
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=980770 that enables
off-main-thread (OMT) animations on nightly and aurora. This
feature has previously been
.
-David
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
I just landed (on mozilla-inbound) a patch for
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=980770 that enables
off-main-thread (OMT) animations on nightly and aurora. This
feature has previously been enabled
for nightly and aurora.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I
Note that we have bug 990804 opened for providing such a service.
Unfortunately, this bug is currently stalled because we apparently
didn't have a clear idea of what API clients would need.
I'm willing to pick this for Q2, if there is interest.
Cheers,
David
On 26/03/15 07:46, Randell Jesup
incompatible with current versions of gecko, don't do
anything anyway, or both.
Any addons affected by this change can simply remove any references to
nsISSLErrorListener and any implementations of the interface (i.e.
notifySSLError).
Cheers,
David
[0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id
On Friday 2015-03-13 16:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
On Friday 2015-03-13 15:34 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
1. Create a commit that introduces a new test
2. Test it
3. Create a commit that purportedly fixes
both the target and host compiler versions when cross-compiling
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling
at the data for layout/, I think the results in the
spreadsheet are mostly wrong, and I'd rather not populate things
using it.
It's not hard to do an initial pass (which I landed yesterday for
layout/).
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review. (Given our involvement, it
seems to me like we should support the charter in general, possibly
with comments.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢
, at least on the
ballot form, though I suppose we could do so in prose.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling
It might be useful to add this to OS.Constants.Sys, which is available
to all threads. It's basically one line of code in
dom/system/OSFileConstants.cpp
Cheers,
David
On 24/02/15 12:44, mratcli...@mozilla.com wrote:
Assuming you just want to know what the architecture of the build
On 07/02/15 11:24, Kyle Huey wrote:
Why don't we just click to play everything?
Well, the poster image could still be used for click-to-play, right?
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. It's also good to set
clear expectations about when code that's on nightly/aurora is
likely to end up on beta and release.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall
of display:none without the other half (where display:none is,
likewise, a feature that doesn't add any capabilities not present in
other ways).
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I
On Friday 2015-01-30 08:54 -0800, Daniel Veditz wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:32 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
There are a number of problematic aspects to this charter to which
we object:
(1) The Confinement with Origin Web Labels deliverable is described
the work
-David
There are a number of problematic aspects to this charter to which
we object:
(1) The Confinement with Origin Web Labels deliverable is described
in a way that makes it unclear what the deliverable would do. It
should be clearer. Furthermore, the lack of clarity means we
the TAG can mean oversight from the
one person on the TAG who's interested in the topic, which may be
less likely to be balanced...
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I
On Friday 2015-01-16 09:58 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:53 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something else we
should say, or if you think we should support the charter.
I think in general it's fine
On Thursday 2015-01-29 13:27 -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
On Friday 2015-01-16 09:58 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:53 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org
wrote:
Please reply
have so far. Comments are
welcome through roughly 5pm California time on Friday --
particularly actionable ones that suggest how to revise this
feedback or at least say how the charter should be different!
(Sorry for not getting this gathered together sooner.)
-David
There are a number
On Sunday 2015-01-18 21:00 -0800, Brian Smith wrote:
L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/webappsec-charter-2015.html
Please see the threads at
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2014Nov/0179.html
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d
as try
syntax, it would be done for them.
David
On 9 December 2014 at 18:46, Gregory Szorc g...@mozilla.com wrote:
In Portland, there were a number of discussions around ideas and features
that could be easier implemented if only we had better metadata and
annotations for source files
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 08:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:53 AM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org
wrote:
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something else we
should say, or if you think we should support the charter.
I think in general it's
it on the record.)
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like
Apple's
complaint, and the extension moved to the state it is at now.
In hindsight, I probably should have supported it, but I didn't want
to get involved.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
, you'll need to
update them to the new syntax.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
doesn't say anything about asynchronous
decision making, which is a bit unusual.
-David
--
턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂
턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I
On Tuesday 2015-01-06 15:14 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/
Pointer Events
There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which
501 - 600 of 963 matches
Mail list logo
