Please aim to add informative messages to your exceptions

Hello, ErrorResult has two kinds of exception-throwing APIs on it: the older ones that don't allow specifying a custom message string, and newer ones that do. People should use the newer ones where possible. That means not using the following when throwing nsresults/DOMExceptions:

Re: [IMPORTANT] Submit your PI Requests for Firefox 71 QA feature testing by Sep 13

Hi, Just a reminder that the deadline for Fx71 PI Requests is today. Please log your requests ASAP if you have not done so yet. - Tom On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM Tom Grabowski wrote: > > Similar to what QA did for previous Firefox feature testing prioritization >

Re: Authentication strategy for servers, which do not return a 401 on unauthenticated requests

Hello, On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19:01 UTC, Honza Bambas wrote: > There is no official or standardized way to "force" authentication, > because this is really a non-standard thing you do. Can you ellaborate on this and why is it off-standard? What shall have been written in the

Re: New Web IDL constructor syntax

On 9/13/19 3:54 AM, Christopher Mills wrote: I've updated the MDN WebIDL guide to include a section on the new syntax: Chris, Thank you! -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Intent to unship: TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1

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

Re: New Web IDL constructor syntax

Thanks Boris. I've updated the MDN WebIDL guide to include a section on the new syntax: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/Contribute/Howto/Write_an_API_reference/Information_contained_in_a_WebIDL_file#New_constructor_syntax (and the new Chrome-only syntax you talked about in your