Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

Note that enabling a FFOS-oriented API like mozbrowser has the effect of turning it on for web content (with some set of permissions) rather than "for chrome", since that's how things work in FFOS. So any work to use mozbrowser on Desktop should take extreme care not to accidentally expose it to

wptview [Re: e10s]

For web-platform-tests there is an additional issue; tests may be enabled but give a different result in e10s builds compared to non-e10s builds. Therefore compiling a list of disabled web-platform-tests in e10s is insufficient to spot all the differences in this case. Instead, I recommend using

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

On Thursday 2016-01-07 10:14 -0800, Richard Barnes wrote: > Obviously, given the earlier FIDO thread here, I think this is good work to > support. > > I think the charter is in pretty good shape. The only comment I have is > that it talks about "attestations" without defining what is being

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

On Saturday 2016-01-09 07:22 +1100, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2016-01-07 10:14 -0800, Richard Barnes wrote: > > Obviously, given the earlier FIDO thread here, I think this is good work to > > support. > > > > I think the charter is in pretty good shape. The only comment I have is > >

Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > Note that enabling a FFOS-oriented API like mozbrowser has the effect of > turning it on for web content (with some set of permissions) rather than > "for chrome", since that's how things work in FFOS. So any work to

Re: wptview [Re: e10s]

On 1/8/2016 3:16 PM, Kalpesh Krishna wrote: For web-platform-tests there is an additional issue; tests may be enabled but give a different result in e10s builds compared to non-e10s builds. Therefore compiling a list of disabled web-platform-tests in e10s is insufficient to spot all the

Re: wptview [Re: e10s]

On 08/01/16 22:41, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: What are the implications of this? The web-platform tests are pass/fail, right? So is it a bug if they pass but have different behaviors in e10s and non-e10s mode?

Re: Dynamic Logging

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: > Why is this so cool? Well now you don't need to restart your browser to > enable logging [1]. You also don't have to set env vars to enable logging > [2]. > epic! thank you. ___

Dynamic Logging

Hi Folks- With bug 1233881 we landed the ability turn on logging via prefs. Lets say you have a log module "Foo", if you add a "logging.Foo" pref and set it to "Debug" you will now see all output from the Foo log module that is of Debug and

Re: Dynamic Logging

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 05:32:48PM -0800, Eric Rahm wrote: > Hi Folks- > > With bug 1233881 we > landed the ability turn on logging via prefs. > > Lets say you have a log module "Foo", if you add a "logging.Foo" pref and > set it to "Debug"

Re: Dynamic Logging

Cool! Does it also work on content process? Best Regards, Shih-Chiang Chien Mozilla Taiwan On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Patrick McManus wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: > > > Why is this so cool? Well now you don't need to

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Authentication Working Group

You might note that the charter already says "Dependencies exist on the Credential Management API ..." :) The credentials API defines a framework that allows for multiple types of credential. So I think the concept is that this WG is likely

Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

What prevents you from using ? Is it because the parent frame is (X)HTML? I don't know what prevents browser-element from being enabled on desktop though -- it's tests are running on desktop, and the actual feature is hidden behind a permission so we won't expose it to the web content even if we

Re: wptview [Re: e10s]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > What are the implications of this? > > The web-platform tests are pass/fail, right? So is it a bug if they pass > but have different behaviors in e10s and non-e10s mode? > Yeah, I'm confused. If a wpt test

Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

I have filed bug 1238160 to investigate and hopefully enable mozbrowser on desktop Firefox. - Ryan On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:23 PM, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> Note that enabling a FFOS-oriented API

Re: Dynamic Logging

Yes, although until bug 1234892 is fixed you'll have to restart the process for changes to take effect. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote: > Cool! Does it also work on content process? > > Best Regards, > Shih-Chiang Chien > Mozilla Taiwan > > On Fri,

Re: Dynamic Logging

This is incredible - thank you for pushing this through Eric! In case the implications of this aren't clear to anyone: One big difficulty with debugging intermittent failures is that enabling logging for the relevant components can often be too expensive for a try run. The logs can consume

Re: Dynamic Logging

On 09/01/2016 09:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 05:32:48PM -0800, Eric Rahm wrote: >> Hi Folks- >> >> With bug 1233881 >> we landed >> the ability turn on logging via prefs. >> >> Lets say you have a log module "Foo", if

Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

Regardless of technical feasibility, I believe we're discouraging new uses of XUL in Firefox. /a On 1/8/16 04:55, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote: What prevents you from using ? Is it because the parent frame is (X)HTML? I don't know what prevents browser-element from being enabled on desktop

Re: HTML mozbrowser frames on desktop Firefox?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote: > What prevents you from using ? Is it because the parent > frame is (X)HTML? Placing a regular, non-remote in the HTML page does work. However, does not work in my specific context according to the policy of