Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

Is there any objection to landing the patch from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1346936 and shipping it in 55 as it stands now? I read this thread and can see there is a lot that could and maybe should be done with writing a spec and engaging with standards orgs. But, does that

RE: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

From: mozilla.dev.platf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mozilla.dev.platf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L. David Baron > > On Friday 2017-05-26 11:53 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: >> How would I go about starting this? >> I have never done anything with web standards before. > > Probably something

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

(Re-sending as I was informed that "posting by email is not allowed"; apologies to those who get this email twice.) From: mozilla.dev.platf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mozilla.dev.platf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of L. David Baron > > On Friday 2017-05-26 11:53 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: >>

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On Friday 2017-05-26 11:53 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > "David" == L David Baron writes: > > David> I agree it would be good to have a somewhat more "proper" spec for > David> this. In terms of process, I think probably the most important > David> (and lowest overhead)

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On Wednesday 2017-05-17 11:14 -0700, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: > If the effort re-materializes, here's what I think should be focused on: > > * Clean up the spec text and any ambiguities it may have; make it a > "proper" standard I agree it would be good to have a somewhat more "proper" spec for

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On 5/17/17 2:14 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: In my experience, trying to get anyone to comment or provide feedback on source map RFCs was a huge pain, and it felt to me like nobody (other browser devtools teams, maintainers of compilers targeting JS) cared enough about source maps to get involved

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: > At the time of the thread, I had hopes that the source map RFC repo would > take off. It never did. Maybe making a "proper" WHATWG standard would help > get people involved, in which case it would be a good idea. I

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > "Boris" == Boris Zbarsky writes: > > >> https://github.com/source-map/source-map-rfc > > Boris> Are there any plans to have a standard here? > > All I found was this: >

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

> "Boris" == Boris Zbarsky writes: >> https://github.com/source-map/source-map-rfc Boris> Are there any plans to have a standard here? All I found was this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.js-sourcemap/SD8sZ_7VFpw ... my reading of that was that there

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

Error().stack is not affected by source maps (nor should it be IMO). This is just devtools facing with nothing that is web observable. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/17/17 11:01 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> In this case I think this does not apply,

Re: Intent to ship: SourceMap header

On 5/17/17 11:01 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: In this case I think this does not apply, because as far as I'm aware source maps are not part of any standard process; rather there is: https://github.com/source-map/source-map-rfc Are there any plans to have a standard here? It really would be

Intent to ship: SourceMap header

I intend to turn support for the SourceMap response header on by default in nightly, and let it ride the trains. It has not been developed behind a preference. The existing X-SourceMap header will still be used if SourceMap is not seen; this matches the behavior of Chrome and WebKit. Bug to