Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

Since the original m.d.p thread on hardwareConcurrency last year: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.platform/QnhfUVw9jCI/discussion the landscape has shifted (as always) and I think we should reevaluate and implement this feature. What hasn't changed are the arguments, made in the

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

I'm ok with implementing this. My biggest concern has always been fingerprinting, and I think that we'll need some way to deal with active (i.e. client-side) fingerprinting anyway, so I don't think this makes a big difference either way. / Jonas On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Luke Wagner

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Yes, I think we should do this. > Happy to hear the positive responses. I implemented a patch for this last year. Since the code is trivial, it probably still applies:

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

FWIW, I also think we should implement this. The clamping seems like a reasonable way to be conservative given the fingerprinting concerns. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Luke Wagner wrote: > Since the original m.d.p thread on hardwareConcurrency last year: > >

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

Yes, I think we should do this. Rob -- lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf toD selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t rdsme,aoreseoouoto o l euetiuruewFa kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr rdm or rnea lurpr .a war hsrer holsa

x-x509-*-cert - Re: On the future of and application/x-x509-*-cert MIME handling

> On 4 Sep 2015, at 22:43, Martin Thomson wrote: > > Henry, I would rather you attempt to address Ryan's point 5, namely: > > 5) just generates keys, and relies on > application/x-x509-*-cert to install certificates. This MIME handling, > unspecified but implemented by major

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

While deciding how much resources are available to complex applications is far from an easy task, and one for which there's no obvious best answer, at least not yet, I agree that giving developers this bit of information is critical to enable exploring this space and bring out the any remaining

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

Follow-up on this, since we now have two days remaining to respond to these proposed charters. If you still have strong opinions about the proposed Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups charters, please reply within 24 hours so we have the opportunity to integrate your opinions into

Re: StructuredCloneHelper

Awesome, thanks for working to unify this stuff baku! Can this stuff be applied to StackScopedClone (used by Cu.cloneInto etc), which currently does this stuff manually in ExportHelpers.cpp? On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Andrea Marchesini wrote: > Hi all, > > In