Re: Changes to tab min-width

2017-11-17 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 7:38 AM, wrote: > 57 is unusable for me..I keep 35-50 tabs open at any given time and I used > Custom Tab Width legacy extension to prevent scrolling. I CANNOT stand > scrolling thru tabs. I don't need to read the tab- I KNOW where they are. > It

Re: Changes to tab min-width

2017-11-17 Thread wade
On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 3:36:40 PM UTC-5, Jeff Griffiths wrote: > Hi! > > tl;dr we changed the default pixel value at which we overflow tabs, > and I want your feedback. > > We just added a change to m-c[1] that does to things: > > 1. it reintroduces an old preference

Intent to Implement and Ship: HTMLTextAreaElement.autocomplete

2017-11-17 Thread Matthew N.
*Summary*: Allows web developers to get the effective/normalized value of the autocomplete attribute in the same way they currently can for and .​ Example: returns "on" for textarea.autocomplete. The return value will respect the pref dom.forms.autocomplete.formautofill, like we already do for

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread Daniel Veditz
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:25 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 17/11/17 16:06, Daniel Veditz wrote: > >> We fail many of the existing CSP web platform tests, despite having >> implemented most of the features, because they were written to use the >> violation events to check

service workers at risk for FF59 ESR

2017-11-17 Thread Ben Kelly
As you may be aware, we have disabled service workers in all ESR releases since it was implemented. At first this was because it was a big new feature with security implications. Then it was because we realized we needed to rewrite a lot of code to properly support multi-e10s. Back porting

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread James Graham
On 17/11/17 16:06, Daniel Veditz wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:01 AM, James Graham > wrote: Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests covering this feature? We fail many of the existing CSP web platform tests, despite

Re: Firefox Browser performance test

2017-11-17 Thread Nicholas Hurley
In addition to Talos, you may also want to look into http://www.webpagetest.org/ which has a lot more info available in terms of packet captures, etc, but has the downside that you can't use custom builds (you can change preferences, though). On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:02 AM,

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread smaug
On 11/17/2017 12:55 AM, Chung-Sheng Fu wrote: Content Security Policy suggests Security Policy Violation DOM Events [1]. In case any of the directives within a policy are violated, such a SecurityPolicyViolationEvent is generated and sent out to a reporting endpoint associated with the policy.

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread Daniel Veditz
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:01 AM, James Graham wrote: > Do we have cross-browser (i.e. web-platform) tests covering this feature? We fail many of the existing CSP web platform tests, despite having implemented most of the features, because they were written to use the

Re: Firefox Browser performance test

2017-11-17 Thread Dustin Mitchell
Firefox has an extensive performance testing framework, called Talos https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos might be a good place to start. Dustin 2017-11-17 10:02 GMT-05:00 : > Hello, > > I would like to test Firefox browser performance test - using default >

Firefox Browser performance test

2017-11-17 Thread harshad . wadkar
Hello, I would like to test Firefox browser performance test - using default settings and using customized settings(about:config). Performance parameters I am looking : 1. Time - required to open webpage 2. Number of packets transferred between the browser and website - while opening the

Re: Still-supported cases of out-of-tree XPCOM code?

2017-11-17 Thread Valentin Gosu
Trying to land bug 1407679, which merges nsIIOService2 into nsIIOService, triggered some crashes on Android. It seems the hostutils is also affected by XPCOM changes. Bug 1415242 updated it and fixed the crashes. On 15 November 2017 at 17:35, Jonathan Kingston wrote: > > Code

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread Ethan Tseng
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 17/11/17 05:55, Chung-Sheng Fu wrote: > >> Content Security Policy suggests Security Policy Violation DOM Events [1]. >> In case any of the directives within a policy are violated, such a >>

Re: Intent to ship: CSP Violation DOM Events

2017-11-17 Thread James Graham
On 17/11/17 05:55, Chung-Sheng Fu wrote: Content Security Policy suggests Security Policy Violation DOM Events [1]. In case any of the directives within a policy are violated, such a SecurityPolicyViolationEvent is generated and sent out to a reporting endpoint associated with the policy. We are