PWA Support

Hello all! I must say I am quite surprised that there is apparently no plan to support PWAs? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593#c8 That seems like a very short-sighted decision at this point. I just recently saw this article about some drawing APP abandoning Electron in favor of

Re: Intent to unship: window.external.AddSearchProvider

As the author of one of these extensions for adding a custom search engine (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-custom-search-engine/) I am of course disappointed, but not actually surprised. This is basically round two from about a year ago. I would like to point out that it would

Re: Intent to ship: Autodiscovery of WebExtension search engines

I would also like to mirror the previous comments: Why do we need to expose this new non-standard feature to the web? Can't we just transform OpenSearch XML internally to the new WebExtension format? On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:17 PM Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:04 PM Dale

Intent to unship: JavaScript toSource and uneval

In bug 1565170 I plan to disable the toSource methods that exists for most objects in Firefox as well as the uneval method on the global object. This change will affect all websites and WebExtension. Both methods will still be available to Firefox internal (chrome) code, but I plan on removing

Re: Intent to unship: Array generics

We decided to try unshipping Array generics for real. The numbers haven't improved, but I also haven't heard of any fallout on Nightly. I am going to assume that those uses are actually already polyfilled for another browsers. -Tom On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:30 PM Tom Schuster wrote: > &

Re: Intent to Prototype: text-decoration-skip-ink

Very cool, I have been looking forward to this. I hope we can enable this for links by default at some point, like Chrome. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 AM Charlie Marlow wrote: > > Summary: text-decoration-skip-ink is a CSS feature that makes underlines and > overlines skip around the text,

Re: Intent to ship: Blocking Worker/SharedWorker with non-JS MIME type

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:21 AM Boris Zbarsky wrote:> > On 7/22/19 6:22 AM, Tom Schuster wrote: > > This was also discussed at https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3255. > > It seems like Chrome does NOT plan on shipping this at the moment. > > Does "at the moment&qu

Intent to ship: Blocking Worker/SharedWorker with non-JS MIME type

In Firefox 70 we plan to start blocking Worker and SharedWorker scripts served with non-JavaScript MIME types. We have similarly been blocking importScripts() since version 67. Bug to turn on by default: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523706 Pref:

Intent to unship: Array generics

We plan to unship the non-standard Array generic methods. These are copies of the methods from Array.prototype, for example Array.slice, Array.forEach etc. No other browser supported those. For testing I will first disable those methods only on Nightly. Bug:

Re: New and improved "about:config" for Firefox Desktop

I am always happy to see more xul going away. Please implement a filter to only show modified preferences. Sorting by modified is probably my most common operation after search on the old page. Thanks On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:40 AM Axel Hecht wrote: > > Is there a tracking bug for

CPOWs are now almost completely disabled

Since landing bug 1465911 [1], CPOWs [2] are only functional on our testing infrastructure. In normal builds that we ship to users CPOWs can be created, but no operations like property lookup can be performed on them. CPOWs continue to exist, because a lot of tests still depend on them. We can't

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Blocking FTP subresources

breaking enterprises or something we > would discover late, and we would want to be able to push a pref to fix > that. > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote: >> >> Summary: All FTP subresources in HTTPs pages (this also inc

Intent to implement and ship: Blocking FTP subresources

Summary: All FTP subresources in HTTPs pages (this also includes blob: etc) will be blocked. Opening FTP links as toplevel documents is still possible. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404744 Platform coverage: All Target release: Firefox 61 (this already landed, but we forgot

Re: Chrome will start marking HTTP pages as "Not secure"

If you flip just security.insecure_connection_text.enabled and not security.insecure_connection_icon.enabled you get Chrome's behavior. Flipping both gives you the broken lock and the "Not Secure" text. I don't see a big difference there and I hope we can ship this as soon as possible. On Fri,

Re: Intent to ship: Array.prototype.values

I plan on landing this today, so this change is going to be in Firefox 60. The pref for enabling/disabling this feature is javascript.options.array_prototype_values. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote: > I talked to Jan de Mooij and it's feasible to a

Re: Intent to ship: Array.prototype.values

additional problems. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Mike Taylor <mi...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote: >> Any additional ideas how to mitigate the risk here? Chrome seems to >> want to add a kill pref for this, from m

Intent to ship: Array.prototype.values

We already tried to ship Array.prototype.values before in Firefox 48, but this broke Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1299593). We are however aware this might have caused other breakages as well. The compatibility risk for this change is high. However

Re: performing cross-context instanceof checks

This could be an issue for WebExtensions as well. I think the contentscript sandbox runs in a different compartment. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > On 11/01/2018 05:29, Cameron McCormack wrote: > >> For use in the meantime, I just landed bug

Re: Phabricator/Lando update, November 2017

There are also various Firefox extensions that can manage 2 factor accounts for you. On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Byron Jones wrote: > TOTP does not require a smartphone. > > there's software TOTP clients that can be run on your desktop, and i'm > also seeing TOTP support

Re: Proposal: Stop using Object.freeze/Object.seal on most of our Javascript Objects

Please don't use proxies unnecessarily. They are bad for performance. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > You could also potentially use a Proxy object: > > https://gist.github.com/hildjj/1ac6e3d52e4e0d23f6289d73c1840a5a > > > On Nov 20, 2017, at

Re: Change: Performance bugs handling and triaging

Hey! Let me start by saying that to me Quantum Flow felt like hugely important work that made an immediate impact on how people perceive Firefox performance. I am really excited that we are going to continue working on this. You often hear people complaining about performance on YouTube and

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Web Authentication

t; [3] (and also the `security.webauth.u2f_enable_softtoken` preference, > since there's no USB support in-tree yet) > > Cheers, > J.C. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote: > >> So what's our status with regards to implement

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Web Authentication

So what's our status with regards to implementing FIDO u2f? I really would like to use my security key natively in Firefox. Best, Tom On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Anders Rundgren < anders.rundgren@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:27:30 PM UTC+1, JC Jones wrote: > >

Intent to unship: Use strict in function with non-simple parameters

To simplify parsing ES 2016 disallows "use strict" in functions with non-simple parameters, like defaults or rest. For example `function f(a = 1) { "use strict"; }` is going to start throwing. Chrome, JSC and Edge already made this change. Bug:

Re: Moving away from autoconf

This is so great. Thank you! On Feb 25, 2016 12:35 AM, "Mike Hommey" wrote: > Hi, > > We are, officially, and starting today with the landing of bug 1250294, > moving away from autoconf. This is not going to happen overnight, and it > is going to be painful, but the first step

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

Seems like this kind of died. I still would like to see this happening. Is this on somebody's agenda? On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Tom Schuster <t...@schuster.me> wrote: > I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Antho

Re: PSA: __noSuchMethod__ is deprecated in SpiderMonkey

Jan just disabled __noSucnMethod__ on Nightly (Firefox 44). On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: > On 3/6/2015 10:44 AM, Jan De Mooij wrote: > >> We've deprecated [0] __noSuchMethod__ [1] support in SpiderMonkey. It's a >> non-standard feature that no

Re: Changes in chrome JS code due to ES6 global lexical scope

I think that would fail as well, because the let would be shadowing the global x, which isn't allowed. On Sep 18, 2015 2:25 PM, "Neil" wrote: > Shu-yu Guo wrote: > > Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is >> that: due to the global

Firefox graphics issues on Windows 10 + Firefox 40

Hey, people on reddit.com/r/firefox are reporting a fair amount of graphics related issues. It seems like most of it boils down to newly blacklisted drivers? Is there a bug for this somewhere? Thanks, Tom ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: Firefox graphics issues on Windows 10 + Firefox 40

Thanks guys for fixing this. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com wrote: AMD bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189266 Nvidia bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189940 -Jeff On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Tom Schuster t

Re: Feel free to use Iterator() in privileged JS (was: Re: Help with removing __iterator__ from JS)

Please remember that the ES6 iteration protocol can only be used with for-of. On Jul 28, 2015 1:20 PM, Paolo Amadini paolo.02@amadzone.org wrote: On 7/23/2015 4:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I might be missing something, but why is __iterator__ and the nonstandard iteration protocol needed

Re: Collecting web platform features implementation status

I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged. On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud anth...@ricaud.me wrote: On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote: Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view on various web platform features. Other browsers have

Help with removing __iterator__ from JS

Hello! We have an old JS extension that allows objects to modify how they behave when used with for-in. However this extension will never make it into ES6 and is actually incompatible with how iteration is defined there. So please don't use __iterator__anymore. I would really appreciate your

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

I think the ribbon would be really useful if it allowed the user to restore the previous clipboard content. However this is probably not possible for all data that can be stored in clipboards, i.e. files. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, May 6,

Resurrecting the Qt toolkit

Hello! I am interested in making the Qt toolkit usable again, especially on Linux. While I don't think we can ever actually use it for more platforms, except maybe some mobile devices, it is still something I care about. For that reason I am trying to avoid X11 specific code. At the moment I am

Re: Overriding the CSP for privileged protocols

Sounds like you would use nsIDOMWindowUtils.loadSheet for that. -Tom On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote: On Friday 2014-06-06 00:30 -0700, Matthew Gertner wrote: As things stand, it should be possible for responsible extensions such as ours (we implement

Re: Google announces Chrome builds for Win64

- Add-ons are going to break in both projects. We need to take the developer community's pain into consideration. What is the problem with addons and win64, binary addons? For e10s JS-only addons are problematic as well, so the level of problems we can expect here are quite different. I don't

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

I recently saw this bug about implementing navigator.getFeature, wouldn't it make sense for this to be like hardware.memory, but hardware.cores? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rik Cabanier caban...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com

Re: DXR UI refresh is live!

The design looks really fresh, I really like the new colors. I am however wondering about additional spaces that were introduced, they seem to even break indentation: http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/jsapi.cpp#1426. -Tom On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Erik Rose

Re: Toolkit sub-module Preferred Reviewers who are not Toolkit Peers

I refactorted and debugged most of the findbar code. Mike seems to the de facto owner, so I think it makes sense for me to do reviews. I doubt anybody else knows much about the code. There seems to be no submodule for it anyway? On Jan 19, 2014 10:40 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote:

Re: Mozilla style guide issues, from a JS point of view

I don't use Terminals for programming, I have the space for 100 chars. I also usually don't open more than one window at a time. I usually just switch between files very quickly if I need to correlate something. Everytime single time I create a patch that touches a lot of code Gecko, I feel like

Re: How to create a child process in a chrome mochitest?

Here is the CPOW test that creates a remote browser: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/test/chrome/test_cpows.xul On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote: Nicholas Nethercote wrote: In theory, this is as easy as iframe mozbrowser remote or

Re: reminder: content processes (e10s) are now used by desktop Firefox

Do we run JS code in these? I can imagine all sorts of things that would cause a crash if JS code can invoke random dom apis. I however very happy that we are testing browser remote=true in a limited fashion with this. Tom On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote:

Re: Accelerating exact rooting work

At the moment it's really just Jono working full time on this, and terrence and other people reviewing. This stuff is actually quite easy and you can expect really fast review times from our side. In some parts of the code rooting could literally just mean to replace JS::Value to JS::RootedValue

Re: Accelerating exact rooting work

, 2013 at 3:58 PM, smaug sm...@welho.com wrote: On 04/23/2013 04:07 PM, Tom Schuster wrote: At the moment it's really just Jono working full time on this, and terrence and other people reviewing. This stuff is actually quite easy and you can expect really fast review times from our side. In some

Re: JavaScript reference changes: looking for opinions

I agree, it is also super tedious to set up and update. You always have to remember to go to /prototype and sometimes you need to clear the caching of the pages that include it. I think some these pages sometimes have extra information that is not included in the main page, but I doubt many people