Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

Hi, I'd like to provide Mozilla IoT team feedback on this charter, the content of which has already been modified slightly based on our earlier feedback to the Working Group during the drafting stages. We are happy overall with

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

Hi, On behalf of the Mozilla IoT team I'd like to recommend that Mozilla support this Interest Group charter. There are a few topic areas I think are probably unnecessary (e.g. Thing Templates and Scripting API), but these are all "explorations" and non-normative deliverables. Overall the

Re: DNS Rebinding protection

On 25 June 2018 at 16:50, Brannon Dorsey wrote: > As far as I see it, a > domain name should never be allowed to respond with a private IP address > moments after it first responded with a public IP address. > If I understand correctly, this is exactly what we plan to do on our Mozilla IoT

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: JSON-LD Working Group

Thank you for looping me in. It's probably worth mentioning that some proposed features for JSON-LD 1.1 may actually help us to keep JSON-LD *out* of the Web of Things specifications, or at least make it an optional mechanism for adding semantic annotations to an otherwise plain JSON

Re: WoT Gateway Implementation

Oops, I sent this to the wrong platform list :) Moving to mozilla.dev@mozilla.org On 15 December 2016 at 11:57, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi, > > In the last platform meeting > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yo1AtuozukgfkZwzO745LdEsB1fdZrE

WoT Gateway Implementation

Hi, In the last platform meeting we talked about kicking off the implementation of some of the key components of the platform, one of which is the WoT gateway implementation. As HomeWeb will

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

; > > If anything, we (Mozilla) should be reaching out to EFF and any other > W3C Members who value an open internet and respecting users privacy > more than profit (perhaps university members of W3C) and asking them > to join our formal objection to anything WoT/IoT at W3C. > &g

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html > > -David > > On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > We collected some feedback in a document > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jbZUgqFiJa_ >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

Hi David, We collected some feedback in a document and I'm going to try to summarise it here. Please let me know if you feel this feedback is appropriate and feel free to edit it before sending. I

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

On 13 October 2016 at 01:51, Martin Thomson wrote: > I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think that we need to insist > that a new W3C group solve these issues. I'm very much concerned with > the question of how a new "thing" might be authenticated, even how > clients of

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

On 12 October 2016 at 02:00, Martin Thomson wrote: > Does anyone at Mozilla intend to join this working group? I see no > Mozilla members in the IG. > Yes, in Connected Devices we have recently started looking at this area in some detail and I think we should seriously

Re: Removal of B2G from mozilla-central

On 30 September 2016 at 11:31, Gabriele Svelto wrote: > Since gonk is a widget on its own, during the internal discussions about > it I - and others who worked on B2G - repeatedly asked for the gonk > widget to be left in the code even after the removal of all the >

Re: B2G OS Announcements on Tuesday

Thank you to everyone who attended this meeting today, the meeting notes <https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Meeting/2016-09-27> are now on the wiki. Ben On 27 September 2016 at 16:02, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > The meeting will be streamed on Air Mozilla in ad

Re: B2G OS Announcements on Tuesday

The meeting will be streamed on Air Mozilla in addition to Vidyo https://air.mozilla.org/b2g-os-announcements-2016-09-27/ On 27 September 2016 at 10:05, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > A reminder that this meeting is today, Tuesday, at 9am PT. > > The mai

Re: B2G OS Announcements on Tuesday

A reminder that this meeting is today, Tuesday, at 9am PT. The main announcements to be discussed are outlined here https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.fxos/FoAwifahNPY/Lppm0VHVBAAJ Ben On 23 September 2016 at 10:10, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > De

B2G OS Announcements on Tuesday

Dear B2G OS community, Our weekly meeting on Tuesday 27th September will be attended by some senior members of staff from Mozilla who would like to make some announcements to the community about the future of the B2G project and Mozilla's involvement. I would strongly recommend that you attend

Re: Non-standard stuff in the /dom/ directory

On 17 August 2016 at 13:07, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> wrote: > As discussed in the public B2G Weekly > <https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Meeting> meetings, the B2G community want > to remove ~30 APIs (~10 of which they have already removed) from Gecko, but >

Re: Non-standard stuff in the /dom/ directory

On 17 August 2016 at 05:05, Kyle Huey wrote: > s/moved out/deleted/ > > This is a complicated subject caught in a variety of internal > politics. I suggest you raise it with your management chain ;) It's really not that complicated and there's no need to be so Machiavellian

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

On 22 June 2016 at 17:18, L. David Baron wrote: > So opposing it takes both a good bit of energy and a potentially a > good bit of political capital (in that it might reduce the > seriousness with which people take future objections that we make). > Do you think it's actually

Re: now available on desktop Firefox

On 8 March 2016 at 06:06, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Tim Guan-tin Chien > wrote: > > This implies the Gaia System app, which is framed by shell.html (a > > chrome document), will switch cookie jar when the default is changed, >

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 26 February 2016 at 21:26, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Without intending to start a shadow discussion on top of what's already > happening on the internal list (sadly), to answer your technical > question, the "platform"/Firefox point is a false dichotomy. As an >

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 27 February 2016 at 03:07, Myk Melez wrote: > Nevertheless, the more significant factor is that this would be a cultural > sea change in the Gecko project. > Eh? I didn't realise it was so radical. My entire involvement with Mozilla and Mozilla technologies over the last

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 26 February 2016 at 15:21, Paul Rouget wrote: > So there are 2 things here. > > Browser API change. Sure, what do you propose? I don't care too much > about the final syntax. But there are things we can improve in the > current API. See

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 26 February 2016 at 17:55, Myk Melez wrote: > > I'd like to see this too, if only because is more ergonomic and > easier to distinguish from the existing API. However, > the isolated from bug 1238160 is reasonable and a great > start. > I agree, let's build on that. >

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 25 February 2016 at 23:08, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > They're orthogonal in that can load something within > an "app context", or not, depending on whether you use a mozapp > attribute. Bug 1238160 makes it so that you can use the non-app variant > on desktop. > I

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 25 February 2016 at 19:14, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > mozApps and the browser API are orthogonal for the most part. Removing > mozApps doesn't mean that we would remove the mozbrowser API (and AFAIK > that's not what Myk is planning.) > They are not entirely orthogonal.

Re: HTML-based chrome and

On 25 February 2016 at 16:22, Paul Rouget wrote: > As a user, using or doesn't really > matter. > How would they differ? Same set of JS methods and events? > When Justin Lebar added the mozbrowser attribute to iframes for me in 2011 (see [1] for the whole story) it was meant

Re: HTML-based chrome and

L-based approach > for browser chrome available on desktop soon. > > - Ryan > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Benjamin Francis <bfran...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been thinking about working towards deprecating "Open Web Apps"

HTML-based chrome and

Hi, I've been thinking about working towards deprecating "Open Web Apps" (aka mozApps ) in Gecko. For the most part I think mozApps should eventually be replaced by standards-based web apps using Web Manifest,

Re: Intent to implement W3C Manifest for web application

On 16 July 2015 at 01:44, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote: As long as platforms exist with homescreens and other inventories of installed apps, of which the browser is one, it seems worthwhile to me to support adding Web apps to those inventories so they're peers of native apps

Re: Intent to implement W3C Manifest for web application

On 16 July 2015 at 14:36, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I can tell, neither of the above are things that another UA can hook into. Am I correct in my understanding here? I asked about that for Chrome Custom Tabs, a Googler told me there's an API so that other

Re: Intent to implement W3C Manifest for web application

On 15 July 2015 at 10:42, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: But it'd be *really* nice to get rid of features that are there specifically to migrate users away from the web and to native Android and iOS apps. If google/apple wants to implement that then that's fine with me, it's their

Re: Intent to implement W3C Manifest for web application

On 15 July 2015 at 10:42, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: I also think that display-mode and orientation (and maybe theme_color) properties seem to make much less sense given the current model of manifests. That seems like information that we'd want to apply during normal browsing too,

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

On 2 July 2015 at 03:37, Tantek Çelik tan...@cs.stanford.edu wrote: tl;dr: It's time. Let's land microformats parsing support in Gecko as a Q3 Platform deliverable that Gaia can use. Happy to hear this! I think there's rough consensus that a subset of OG, as described by Ted, satisfies

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

Thanks for the responses, Let me reiterate the Product requirements: 1. Support for a syntax and vocabulary already in wide use on the web to allow the creation of cards for the largest possible volume of existing pinnable content 2. Support for a syntax with a large enough and/or

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

On 26 June 2015 at 19:25, Marcos Caceres mar...@marcosc.com wrote: Could we see some examples of the cards you are generating already with existing data from the Web (from your prototype)? The value is really in seeing that users will get some real benefit, without expecting developers to add

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

On 26 June 2015 at 12:58, Ted Clancy tcla...@mozilla.com wrote: My apologies for the fact that this is such an essay, but I think this has become necessary. Firefox OS 2.5 will be unveiling a new feature called Pinning The Web, and there's been some discussion about whether we should

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 26 June 2015 at 08:29, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote: Maybe there is a way to start small. Iterate. Look at the results. And push further in the direction which appears to be meaningful. Exactly, I'm looking for a solid MVP that we can iterate on. More detailed response to Ted's

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

On 26 June 2015 at 17:02, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: I would encourage you to go a little deeper... We need to judge standards on their merits I did look deeper. I read most of all the specifications and several papers on their adoption. My personal conclusion was that not only

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 26 June 2015 at 08:00, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Is the idea to just keep adding events for each bit of information we might need from a document? That is how the Browser API works. Ben ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

the bugs and look towards getting this implemented on the Browser API as soon as possible. Thanks Ben On 4 June 2015 at 10:19, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: On 3 June 2015 at 19:42, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: This is what I'd really like to get more

Re: Browser API: iframe.executeScript()

On 16 June 2015 at 16:24, Paul Rouget p...@mozilla.com wrote: In bug 1174733, I'm proposing a patch to implement the equivalent of Google's webview.executeScript: https://developer.chrome.com/apps/tags/webview#method-executeScript This will be useful to any consumer of the Browser API to

Re: Browser API: iframe.executeScript()

On 17 June 2015 at 13:29, Paul Rouget p...@mozilla.com wrote: Extending the API every time we want to do something that goes beyond the API capabilities is painful and slow. Yes I'm acutely aware of this, having done it for the last three and half years :) The executeScript approach makes

Re: Browser API: iframe.executeScript()

On 17 June 2015 at 15:57, Paul Rouget p...@mozilla.com wrote: - access the computed style of the body to update the theme of the browser By theme do you mean like a kind of automatic theme-color? You probably know the b2g browser currently just uses the metachange event to get theme-color meta

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 3 June 2015 at 19:42, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: This is what I'd really like to get more of, particularly usage data. I've reached out to a few people at Yahoo, Google and a couple of universities and have managed to turn up a few studies with useful data [1][2][3][4

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 4 June 2015 at 03:27, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote As came up in some off-list discussion with Anne, is the “Manifest for a web application” spec at https://w3c.github.io/manifest/ not relevant here? (Nothing to reverse engineer, since it has an actual spec—with defined processing

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

Thanks for all the responses so far! Comments inline... On 30 May 2015 at 21:09, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: We should use whatever formats people are using to mark up pages. If that is microdata we should use that. If it's RDF we should use that. If its JSONLD we should use that.

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 30 May 2015 at 00:56, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: We've bitten ourselves before going down the RDF rathole (see extensions et al). Not sure we should so rapidly start again. Why can't you use the Microdata API? Is this already supported in Gecko? I can't find it documented

Linked Data and a new Browser API event

Hi, In Gaia the Systems Front End team is implementing the Pinning the Web design concept [1] which amongst other things represents pinned web pages as cards on the homescreen. The goal is that where possible these cards should not just be a thumbnail screenshot of the page, but should be a

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

On 28 May 2015 at 18:13, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote: For the real implementation I suggest we investigate supporting one or more formats for Linked Data in web pages (based on level of adoption) and surface them to Gaia through a linkeddatachange event on the Browser API. I