Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

On 1/14/19 9:09 PM, fantasai wrote: I have no idea why I did that. Fixed. Thank you! Yes, the spec reflects general consensus, and has been explicitly cleared for shipping by the CSSWG (as of several years). See issue at the bottom of the intro:   https://www.w3.org/TR/css-logical-1/#intro

Re: Intent to implement and ship: forced case-sensitive attribute selector matching

On 12/11/18 6:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Spec stability: Not 100% clear, but I expect it's pretty stable; on the spec level this is a tiny change and there's not much controversy about which letter to use for the flag, I would think. As the editor of the spec, I second this assessment.

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Overflow media queries

On 12/23/18 2:59 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: Summary: More explicitly expose the kind of handling for overflowing content in media queries. Using a media expression instead of the print media type allows for more flexibility, see the bug description. Implementation wise, we already expose

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

On 1/14/19 10:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 1/14/19 12:58 PM, Mats Palmgren wrote: Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical/#propdef-padding-inline Two quick questions on the spec: 1) 'padding-block-start' is defined as:   Value:  <‘padding-top’> while 'padding-block' is

Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS margin-block and margin-inline shorthands

Summary: The margin-block CSS property is a shorthand for the margin-block-start/end properties (ditto -inline) Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1519944 Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical/#propdef-margin-inline Platform coverage: All platforms Estimated

Soft code freeze for Firefox 66 starts January 21

Hi all, On January 21, we will be merging Firefox 66 from mozilla-central to beta for the first time. In order to avoid invalidating the testing we get out of late Nightly and the early Developer Edition builds and to ensure that we can roll out Beta 66 to a wider audience with confidence, we'd

Re: Apple Notary Service and Debugging Impact

FWIW, I tend to debug local builds of these individual branches to make my life easier, for example by turning optimization off etc. It has only been a handful of times that I had to debug an official build. Having to disable SIP to debug isn't ideal, but tolerable given how infrequently this

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

On 1/14/19 7:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Do you know whether this is purposeful or just a typo? Dunno. It seems like a typo to me. 2) We are just implementing the padding shorthands for now, not the margin ones? Yes, but I should probably just add margin-block/inline while I'm at it...

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

On 1/14/19 7:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/14/19 12:58 PM, Mats Palmgren wrote: >> Do other browser engines implement this? No, >> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-logical/logical-box-padding.html > > Do they plan to?  That is, is the spec reflecting some sort of general > consensus?

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

On 1/14/19 12:58 PM, Mats Palmgren wrote: Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical/#propdef-padding-inline Two quick questions on the spec: 1) 'padding-block-start' is defined as: Value: <‘padding-top’> while 'padding-block' is defined as: Value: <‘padding-left’>{1,2}

Intent to Implement and Ship: CSS padding-block and padding-inline shorthands

Summary: The padding-block CSS property is a shorthand for the padding-block-start/end properties (ditto -inline) Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1519847 Link to standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-logical/#propdef-padding-inline Platform coverage: All platforms

Re: XPCOM Tidying Proposal

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:12 AM Bobby Holley wrote: > > I think the answer is "it depends". BasePrincipal makes a lot of sense for > principals, because it allows for a lot of sharing among the subclasses, of > which there are only four. URIs are more complicated, and probably deserve > a

Re: XPCOM Tidying Proposal

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Kyle Machulis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:59 AM Bobby Holley > wrote: > >> The idea is that we should gradually pass BasePrincipal around the >> codebase >> rather than nsIPrincipal, which would avoid the need to invoke Cast at the >> specific callsite. I

Mach's bash completion now completes arguments and subcommands

Hi everyone, Just a quick note that the bash completion script that ships with mach now completes subcommands and arguments. Previously it would only complete the main set of commands. This should help with

Re: Intent to ship: TextEncoder.encodeInto() - UTF-8 encode into caller-provided buffer

On 1/14/19 4:28 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: This is now an "intent to ship". The feature landed in the spec, in WPT and in Gecko (targeting 66 release). Where do other browsers stand on this feature, do you know? -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list

Intent to ship: TextEncoder.encodeInto() - UTF-8 encode into caller-provided buffer

This is now an "intent to ship". The feature landed in the spec, in WPT and in Gecko (targeting 66 release). On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:12 AM Henri Sivonen wrote: > > # Summary > > TextEncoder.encodeInto() adds encoding JavaScript strings into UTF-8 > into caller-provided byte buffers. This is a