On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:33 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
Hi Dmitri.
Since this is an
On Jun 29, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
29.06.2011, 07:42, TAMURA, Kent tk...@chromium.org:
I'm a little negative of developing a new XML parser. I'm afraid that the
new parser introduces a lot of security/stability problems which existing
parsers already resolved.
How
On Jun 29, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Dirk Schulze k...@webkit.org wrote:
Am 29.06.2011 um 05:42 schrieb TAMURA, Kent:
I'm a little negative of developing a new XML parser. I'm afraid that the
new parser introduces a lot of
On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
Can you give an example of a smooth UI that you'd need the more complex API
for? When I think of the existing mail and chat apps in iOS/Android that I've
use, input type=contacts could give just as smooth a UI as the existing
apps, it's just
Consolidating replies to avoid spamming the thread:
On Jun 28, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
A question and a comment:
1) Will this let us to remove the code for both the libxml2 and the
QtXml parsers? I'd certainly much rather have one XML parser than
three.
If the new parser
.
Note that I listed using PassRefPtr for arguments less often (but not never) as
a separate option.
On Jun 18, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
(1) Use PassRefPtr for every parameter that takes ownership.
I still think this is the appropriate rule, and always have, but I think
On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
20.06.2011, в 03:22, Maciej Stachowiak написал(а):
For a shared ownership model there are multiple possible definitions of
whether a function takes ownership to an object passed as an argument. Here
are some of my attempts
On Jun 18, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
1:
Recently, Alexey has encouraged me to use PassRefPtr less for function
arguments.
The PassRefPtr optimization pays off when the object in question is possibly
being handed off from one PassRefPtr to another. For an argument, that can
Getting on the latest protocol in place would be great, so long as we minimize
the risk of anyone shipping a halfway mix.
- Maciej
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I thought Kitamura-san had patches mostly ready to switch us over? Either
way, I agree we don't want
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
1) We definitely have consensus to fix the broken non-logically-const
accessors by making them non-const; consensus on also adding const accessors
is less clear
I don't have a personal opinion on which way is technically better myself. But
I think the key is getting our code aligned with where standards are going,
wether by changing he code or the standards. EventTarget in the prototype chain
seems neither especially awesome nor especially terrible to
On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Sam Weinig wei...@apple.com wrote:
Why should we implement this spec? We already have one flex box
implementation that we can never remove (and corresponds closely to
Firefox's) so it seems to me that we should
On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
I think the “make some things non-const” part of this would be the first part
to put up for review and land.
To expand on Darin's remark in two different ways:
1) We definitely have consensus to fix the broken non-logically-const accessors
by
On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
All functions passed to enclosingNodeOfType in htmlediting.cpp are such
clients:
Node* enclosingNodeOfType(const Position p, bool (*nodeIsOfType)(const
Node*), EditingBoundaryCrossingRule
On Jun 1, 2011, at 8:11 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
I agree that const should be used for logical constness. The rule should
not be merely doesn't alter any data members of this object but rather
does not alter
Does anyone have an opinion on this Web Storage spec bug? The input of the
WebKit community is desired. And probably Safari and Chrome folks in
particular, if opinions differ.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#dom-storage-getitem says that
. Of course, one answer is that people should just use IndexedDB.
FWIW, Jorlow (when he was still working on chrome) expressed similar
sentiments.
On Jun 2, 2011 4:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on this Web Storage spec bug? The input
On May 31, 2011, at 10:00 PM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
For example, the compiler does not tell you that the following
implementation of Node::previousSibling() (currently in our code!) is
totally wrong from the logical const perspective
On May 30, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Updated:
Const member functions:
Do use const member functions in classes that are independent data holders,
to help distinguish between references that can modify the data and
references that can't.
Do not use const member
On May 31, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
A linked list node or tree node could useful have const methods, which give
only const pointers/references to other nodes. If there is a reason const
references
On May 31, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I agree that const should be used for logical constness. The rule should
not be merely doesn't alter any data members of this object but rather
does not alter observable state of this object or vend any type of pointer
or reference by
On May 31, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I agree that one useful distinction is whether a particular kind of object
is every manipulated via const pointers or references. If we never use const
references
On May 25, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
Reading my comments on the bug, I was happy that the document had a
pointer to the DocumentLoader. My apologies for misunderstanding the
ownership relations between these objects. I thought that
DocumentLoader had Document-lifetime, but it
On May 23, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Patrick Mueller wrote:
On 5/20/11 12:46 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
What incentive will users have to enable it? For other privacy sensitive
features (be it cookies or geolocation), there is a clear benefit to gain
from them.
This is a developer-mode
The bindings layer isn't really on top of the Core. In particular, almost every
API, however tangential, has an addition to the global Window namespace, and
the Core part needs to be able to instantiate the right kind of Window object.
Also, APIs that start standalone sometimes eventually grow
On May 16, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
The bindings layer isn't really on top of the Core. In particular, almost
every API, however tangential, has an addition to the global Window
namespace, and the Core
On May 6, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote:
Hi webkit-dev folks,
I wanted to let you know that I plan to add (and have added some code for)
unified storage quota API to WebKit.
The feature/API is to allow webapps to request or query per-origin storage
quota across multiple storage
On May 4, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Xianzhu Wang wrote:
Hi,
KURL's relative URL behavior is different between Chromium and non-Chromium
ports, because Chromium ports use KURLGoogle.cpp instead of KURL.cpp.
In KURL(base, relative), when base is a not hierarchical, WebKit's
KURL::string()
On May 4, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Adam Roben aro...@apple.com wrote:
On May 4, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
I wish I could make script tests that didn't output PASS/FAIL
What's stopping you?
Probably ignorance. How do I do it?
You
renaming those.
That being said, if we do want to rename the feature flags specifically, then
FEATURE would certainly be a fine name.
Regards,
Maciej
Adam
On Apr 28, 2011 2:51 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
The following slightly more complete and accurate command finds 132
The following slightly more complete and accurate command finds 132:
$ find Source -name *.cpp -or -name *.h -or -name *.mm -or -name *.c
-or -name *.m -or -name *.idl | xargs -L 1000 grep -r #if ENABLE -h |
awk '{print $2}' | grep ENABLE | sed -e 's/(/_/; s/)//;' | sort | uniq
Some
I diff'd my results with yours and added the extras to the spreadsheet.
- Maciej
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:51 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
The following slightly more complete and accurate command finds 132:
$ find Source -name *.cpp -or -name *.h -or -name *.mm -or -name *.c
-or -name
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jer Noble jer.no...@apple.com wrote:
FWIW, WebKit/mac generates these images programmatically, so there's not
really a URL for play button hover state which can be targeted. That
said, if the URL scheme
This probably won't be a huge improvement given your numbers, but
platform/mac-tiger could be deleted at this point.
Regards,
Maciej
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
As I sat tonight, waiting for my local repository to update (~1 hour and
counting at this point), I had a
On Apr 21, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Jian Li wrote:
The current File API spec says that:
If the end parameter is not provided (undefined), let relativeEnd be size.
That seems like loose wording. Parameter not provided and parameter provided
with a value of undefined are in general not the same
Some concerns with this new format:
(1) Takes two lines per entry unless you make your window ridiculously wide.
This makes it hard to scan.
(2) Slow to load (apparently it loads a 3 meg JSON file before displaying
anything?)
(3) I like PrettyPatch format better than wdiff format.
(4) Blue
On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
Thanks for the quick feedback.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
(1) Takes two lines per entry unless you make your window ridiculously wide.
This makes it hard to scan.
I'll make it whitespace:nowrap
it that does not require diverging our
IDL dialect further from Web IDL, especially since this is the only method
likely to need the feature. Are there any other practical solutions?
Regards,
Maciej
Thanks,
Jian
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote
On Apr 20, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jian Li wrote:
Hi,
I've just found a problem in our generated code for handling optional
parameters. Suppose we define a method with optional parameter in numeric
type, like the following in IDL:
Foo bar(in [Optional] long long start, in [Optional]
On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you, but if I do, this is what I was
attempting to talk about in the paragraph above, about expecting some
tests to be flaky or failing under NRWT simply because NRWT isn't
exactly identical to ORWT. NRWT may be
Is there data on:
- The user impact of modal dialogs being fired from before unload, unload or
page hide - how often does this happen?
- The Web compatibility impact of removing this functionality (are the sites
that do it using it for seemingly legitimate reasons)?
I can think of two ways to
On Apr 6, 2011, at 7:39 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
There are also a number of bugs currently listed as blocking that I
don't think really qualify. Unless told otherwise, I'm plannning to
remove the blocking flag from the following on Monday 4/11 (if they
haven't been fixed first):
57640
On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
If the issue is simply one of overhead, then we should allow committers to
omit change logs when they're not necessary as well.
Sure I am open to discussion about that. I think that some
Darin didn't want to explain, but I'll mention that there are occasionally
situations where non-bugzilla review is desirable. Sometimes, it is desirable
to avoid drawing attention to a change because it relates to confidential
unreleased products, and in such cases it may be necessary to do
In addition to your comments, I also find the gyp syntax somewhat unpleasant.
In particular, in .gypi lists of files to compile, ever entry is double-quoted,
comma-separated, line-separated, and then grouped in multiple levels of braces.
This is noisier than any of our current formats except
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
From my perspective, approach (2) is more desirable than checking in
generated project files because approach (2
On Mar 23, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
While this is certainly technically feasible, it would add a huge amount
of overhead to the process of performing a submission.
How often do you submit WebKit to the Apple internal build system? If
that's sensitive information, I'm just
It could just be a bug with WebKitTestRunner; it may be failing to focus the
window.
- Maciej
On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
Actually, looks like this is a WebKit2-related bug. It just happens that this
is the only non-pixel test that depends on the window having focus.
On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
In short, what Adam just said :)
In long(-er),
Your annoyance is quite understandable. I won't go into the reasons
for the delay, but the major technical reason has been fixed, finally.
These are the issues that I am aware of that remain:
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:18 AM, Adam Roben wrote:
Reducing the number of build systems is a face-meltingly worthy goal. I have
one small question:
On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
3) Remove the xcodeproj files from svn.webkit.org and integrate the
generation of xcodeproj files
On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Another consequence of step 3 is it would break submissions to Apple's
central build system, since those pull from the repository with vanilla SVN
and do not run special
On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi,
When is the best time to land a massive patch that requires rebaselines of
about 165 tests?
I'm going to land my patch for the bug 51389 within the next 24 hours but the
patch is 688KB
and rebaselines 186 tests, of which 165 are
On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I agree. My hope was always that the OpenGL backend could be shared among
all the webkit ports, my only suggestion is that rather than having a
separate OpenGLExtensionsFunctions class, I think we probably want something
like
We don't have any approval process.
- Maciej
On Feb 15, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Alexander Pavlov wrote:
A few edits have been applied to the text (thanks to everyone who
contributed!)
What is the official approval process for the Webkit blog
I'd like to add SnowLeopard Intel Release (WebKit2 Tests) to the set of core
builders.
For the past few weeks, I have kept it green or close to green. This bot is
successfully running 20266 tests, and has lately been more green than many bots
that are core builders. The most common source of
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53901
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
Go for it. The only requirement to be a core build is that the bot is
green. If the bot is red for long stretches, we can remove it.
Adam
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m
On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Well, I didn't mean to pick on the authors of this file. This is the
impression I get from a lot of code that some call well-commented, by which
they mean lots
On Jan 31, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
I think people who favor comments tend to produce a lot of exactly this kind
of comment. Except in some cases its
On Jan 31, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like the one line patch to C just broke A. It had a
dependency on the behavior of C that
On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
This thread has probably gone the way of all webkit-dev threads on comments
or ChangeLog files -- people's opinions vary, it turns into a bikeshed, and
nothing really changes about how we code. Repeat in a year.
Well, even though we didn't
I'll go the other way and point out some example of comments that I think are
poor.
///
// BlobResourceSynchronousLoader
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebCore/platform/network/BlobResourceHandle.cpp?rev=69610#L72
On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
In general, I agree with what Eric and Darin said about this topic.
By the way, here are some good resources that align well with the traditional
WebKit project philosophy of commenting:
My new favorite statement about this topic
On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
On Sunday, January 30, 2011, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'll go the other way and point out some example of comments that I think
are poor.
This file is terribly commented, I agree, but cherry picking a really
bad file
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
I agree with all of the sentiments below, except for possibly one or two
cases.
Namely, sometimes you write code where the what is not obvious. In
that situation, it may not be possible to change the code to make it
more obvious, because
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The WOFF font specification requires that browsers apply Same Origin
Restrictions (SOR) to WOFF fonts. So far, Firefox and IE9 follow this
requirement, while we and Opera don't.
As far as I know, our lack of SOR is basically an accident;
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The WOFF font specification requires that browsers apply Same Origin
Restrictions (SOR) to WOFF fonts. So far, Firefox
On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
What kind of diffs you're getting for the wrappers?
All kinds. Most are some small difference between the template and the
generated wrapper. An HTML5 DOCTYPE instead of the one in the
On Jan 13, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯) wrote:
Thanks everyone for your replies on link headers and rel types.
Mike Belshe from Chrome team put together a spec for these as part of Server
Hints for SPDY. His server hint information is at:
Do other browsers support these values in the HTTP Link header? Do Web sites
use them? I think the idea of triggering subresource loads from HTTP headers
instead of the HTML itself is problematic. We should support it only to the
degree required for Web compatibility.
Regards,
Maciej
On Jan
webkit-patch (at least the upload and land commands) will now default to
looking in only the current directory, not the whole SVN tree. This seems to be
the behavior preferred by most SVN users. If you want to do the whole tree, you
can change to the root. Also, there is a new -d option which
On Jan 4, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Alex Milowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
Hi webkit-dev,
I was looking at the MathML code recently and I wonder, that all files are
located at WebCore
On Dec 29, 2010, at 9:35 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com
On Dec 27, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Here's a snapshot of my current thinking on where the files and
folders currently in the top-level directory might go.
There are a bunch of build-system related files that are currently in
the root. I'm not sure whether we should leave them
On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Sam Weinig wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
Is it really a good idea to move platform out of WebCore? Lots of stuff
there seems quite WebCore related.
There seem to be a couple people who aren't sold on moving
On Dec 24, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
I've started the process of moving the source code to a Sources
directory. So far, I've moved JavaScriptGlue, which is a small
project used by the Mac build. I'll be moving the rest of the
projects, as discussed. Moving the code to Sources
On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
[Forking the thread]
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Mark Rowe mr...@apple.com wrote:
On 2010-12-22, at 10:34, Adam Barth wrote:
As an aside, would creating the Sources directory make it easier to
move WTF out of JavaScriptCore?
I don't
It should probably have its own feature define. It doesn't really make sense to
have ArrayBuffer support in XHR only if you have either WebGL or File support.
Regards,
Maciej
On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Jian Li wrote:
Currently it is guarded by the same guarding expression.
CC Chris who
On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Mark Rowe wrote:
On 2010-12-22, at 10:45, Kenneth Russell wrote:
I see. The GLU tessellator was integrated because it was the only
viable option for helping implement GPU-accelerated path rendering in
WebKit. (This work is still in early stages, and the
On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:23 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
While we're in the mood to rename directories, would these renamings make
sense:
WebKitSite = WebSite
Just Site might be more Tab-complete-friendly, though it is less precise.
Regards,
Maciej
___
On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
Here’s my attempt to list the tests we currently have:
- Automated regression tests (from LayoutTests directory). Many different
types: Layout/pixel, text, script-tests, ref-tests coming soon, some
requiring local server, some
On Dec 15, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:28 AM, Steve Block wrote:
I have a question about whether WebCore code makes assumptions about
the atomicity of certain read/write operations.
The particular instance I'm interested in is IconDatabase, where
On Dec 14, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Steve Block wrote:
On the one hand, getting rid of ifdefs is good. On the other hand, it seems
to me there are some downsides to moving ports over to the client-based
approach:
The motivation is much more than removing ifdefs. The original
Geolocation
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:45 AM, John Knottenbelt wrote:
I've been working on getting Chromium's WebKit layer to support client-based
Geolocation. This means that a class in the Chromium WebKit layer implements
the WebCore interface GeolocationClient, and an instance of this class is
provided
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
I’m worried a bit, though, that if we can’t use any text in them at all, the
tests are then not at all self explanatory. You have to be an expert on the
test to understand
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
We could greatly decrease the number of these baselines by following a
simple rule: don't
On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
03.12.2010, в 13:54, Eric Seidel написал(а):
I'm not sure we have any examples of bool passing like that in real code.
We do, although I can't provide one now. I just remember this being discussed
in bug review.
I think that
It seems reasonable to keep mock objects that act solely as the back end to
platform/ classes in platform/. I believe Sam was commenting specifically on
mock objects that know about things outside platform/. The specific example
given was not (afaict) a client interfance. I think it's
On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Hajime Morita wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote
On Nov 17, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Hajime Morita wrote:
In other word, we should make sure that TextChecker interface can have
subclasses both inside and outside WebCore.
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Finnur Thorarinsson wrote:
Umm... shouldn't this behavior be commented so that people are not left
wondering why it fails and trying to fix it?
Sure, sounds good.
Instructions for submitting patches to add
On Nov 10, 2010, at 2:54 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
The first thing we should figure out is whether XSLT 2.0 is something we
even want to implement. If it's not backwards compatible with XSLT 1.0 and
other browsers
The first thing we should figure out is whether XSLT 2.0 is something we even
want to implement. If it's not backwards compatible with XSLT 1.0 and other
browsers are not planning on implementing it, then it's a significant risk to
move to XSLT 2.0. We'd likely break backwards compatibility
Are there any specific link types we should support in the Link: header besides
stylesheets? I know other browsers support Link to reference a stylesheet, so
it's probably good for interop if we do it too.
Regards,
Maciej
On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
Now that RFC 5988 is
On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:47 AM, James Robinson wrote:
Within WebCore there are a number of directories that can be thought of as
components with fairly well-defined dependencies. For example,
WebCore/platform is intended to be a base component that the rest of WebCore
can depend on but that
On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
19.10.2010, в 12:33, Adam Barth написал(а):
Maybe the thing to do is CC the author of the flaky test for the one
bug comment and then immediately unCC them. That way
On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
Hi webkit-dev,
I'd like to gauge interest in the WTFURL work [1]. Currently, there
are two WTFURL patches that have been up for review for over a month
without a single comment:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45085
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:44 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Oct 11, 2010, at 3:35 PM, James Robinson wrote
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Hmm, I've found weak pointer abstractions to be very useful. The issue with
reference counting is that it is easy to introduce memory leaks, and has
been mentioned
On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:03 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Hmm, I've found weak pointer abstractions
I don't know if this is what Darin (Adler) is referring to, but at one point I
think there was a special weak pointer for Nodes to point back to their
Document. This turned out to be the wrong design since for Web-compatible
behavior you really want the document to stay alive while the node is
601 - 700 of 1378 matches
Mail list logo
