Re: Intent to prototype: Web Share Target

[Marcos Caceres]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 12:28:24 AM UTC+10, David Burns wrote:
> Is this something that we could be tested with testdriver.js inside wpt?

It's complicated because every handles installation differently in their 
respective UIs (and it can chance from one browser version to another). 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Intent to ship: Web Speech API

[Marcos Caceres]

As of October 11th, the Emerging Technologies Team intend to turn "Web Speech 
API" on by default in *Nightly only* on Mac, Windows, and Linux. It has been 
developed behind the "media.webspeech.recognition.*" and 
"media.webspeech.synth" preference. 

Other UAs shipping this or intending to ship it are Chrome, and Safari (speech 
synth only, not recognition).

Bug to turn on by default: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1244237

This feature was previously discussed in this "Intent to prototype" thread: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/uM3NzS3hKkk/KsWBbf0BRIEJ

What's new since 2014?:

 - The updated implementation more closely aligns with Chrome's implementation 
- meaning we get better interop across significant sites.  
 - adds the ability to do speech recognition on a media stream.
 - speech is processed in our cloud servers, not on device. 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to unship: TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1

[rpedrica]

On Friday, 13 September 2019 12:36:56 UTC+2, Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:09 AM Martin Thomson  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:50 PM Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Do we know what the situation looks like for connections to RFC 1918 
> >> addresses?
> >
> > That's a hard one to even speculate about, and that's all we really have 
> > there.  Our telemetry doesn't really allow us to gain insight into that.
> 
> I see.
> 
> > The big question being enterprise uses, where there is some chance of 
> > having names on servers in private address space.  Most use of 1918 outside 
> > of enterprise is likely still unsecured entirely.
> 
> I was thinking of home printer, NAS and router config UIs that are
> unsecured in the sense of using self-signed certificates but that
> still use TLS, so that TLS matters for practical compatibility. I
> don't know of real examples of devices that both use TLS exclusively
> and don't support TLS 1.2. (My printer redirects http to https with
> self-signed cert but supports TLS 1.2.)
> 
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> 

I would agree that these changes and changes that have already occurred over 
the last year or so, have broken access to admin consoles of older networking 
kit. I had to pull a WinXP machine out of storage recently to manage an HP 2610 
switch.

Granted some of these may be edge cases, but it would be nice to have some 
exclusion system or exclusions for rfc1918 spaces for cases like self-signed 
certs and similar issues, even if it's an advanced Preferences selection and 
not on the error page itself.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform