On 8/24/17 2:08 AM, Andrew Swan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Alessio Placitelli <
> aplacite...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> 2017-08-24 0:00 GMT+02:00 Andrew McKay :
>>> The recommendations are being populated and other changes are being
>>> made. For example, on September 1st only WebEx
On 3/22/17 8:10 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Nicolas B. Pierron
> wrote:
>> On 03/22/2017 09:18 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>
>>> Without XPCOM extensions, what's the story for out-of-tree spell checkers?
>>>
>>> […], which implements
>>> mozISpellCheckingEngine in JS
On 2/18/17 7:40 AM, bird.freudent...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Unfortunately I'm using this approach to bundle my themes with an extension
> that extends capability to them. I'm wondering why to remove this feature at
> this point of development, since for Firefox 57 upwards XUL based addons will
On 5/11/16 9:40 AM, oonuma ryouyu wrote:
> I just learning XUL.
>
> I create simple addon,but it can't load script.
>
> I tryed this problem for whole two days.
>
> https://github.com/lv/overlay_xul
>
> please help me.
>
Please use one of the resources listed here for add-on questions:
h
On 11/30/15 1:53 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-11-30 10:29 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
>> Could we perhaps organize a MozLando workshop to discuss add-ons
>> security?
>
> I think you need to reach out to the add-ons team. I was not involved
> in any of the design process; I just hap
On 11/26/15 11:51 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> For what it's worth, this thread was not meant to point fingers, but
> specifically to get an answer from said team. I see concern about
> Extension Signing, and I see points made by add-on developers and which
> appear valid to me and which I
Add-ons that use those APIs can pass review, yes. They would also need
to be signed, unless they're using one of the Firefox versions that can
disable signing.
Jorge
On 8/29/15 10:50 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote:
> Will either js-ctypes or child process-calling add-on passes AMO
> review? With si
Kris from the Add-ons Team is already looking into this and will message
developers affected by this issue.
Jorge
On 9/18/14, 1:47 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
> Is the AMO compatibility checker powerful enough to detect at least the
> first category of required changes? If so I don't think we shou
On 8/15/14, 1:03 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 15/08/2014 07:17, Jeff Walden wrote:
>> I think our best bet is probably to evangelize the change hard,
>> update AMO linters to flag the issue, and (gulp) wait for, and assist
>> wherever possible, addon authors to update their code. Part #1,
>> sh
On 8/13/14, 5:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> On 2014-08-13, 6:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>>> About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having
>>> chrome JS becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me.
On 7/16/14, 2:40 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Generally, using jQuery in XUL files is not supported. Some of jQuery
> might work accidentally, but it is designed specifically to work with
> HTML, not XUL. If you want to write HTML-based add-ons, you should take
> a look at Je
On 4/14/14, 3:46 PM, David Burns wrote:
> Not from my side!
>
> David
>
> On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote:
>> On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said:
>>
>>> XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing
>>> people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensivel
Cross posting to dev.planning, where I originally intended this to be.
Please follow up to dev.planning.
Jorge
On 10/30/13 3:42 PM, Jorge Villalobos wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As many of you know, the Add-ons Team, User Advocacy Team, Firefox Team
> and others have been collaborating for
o
distribute add-ons as they please, while we get a much-needed set of
tools to fight malware and keep it at bay.
There are more details in the doc, so please give it a read and post
your comments and questions on this thread.
Jorge Villalobos
Add-ons Developer Relations Lead
[1] h
On 10/15/13 2:41 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> On 10/15/13 12:28 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
>> I have no idea how to install a langpack. Presumably it is something
>> that is done through AMO. I am skeptical that this is easy enough to
>> make it acceptable to push this task off to the user. we should at
On 10/8/13 10:09 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 11:06 AM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>> In general, I'm pretty against this kind of monkey-patching if it's made
>> available to out-of-tree consumers. We should learn our lesson from XPCOM
>> and recognize what a royal PITA it can be when exten
On 7/19/13 3:21 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> This is a short announcement: chrome workers now support modules. For
> your future developments involving chrome workers, please make use of
> the module system.
>
> All the documentation may be found here:
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/e
On 6/18/13 8:12 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
>
>> If we design it properly this shouldn't be a huge issue (and users
>> disabling the feature probably won't be necessary). This isn't
>> something we'd provide UI for, certainly.
>>
>
> Then we sho
On 5/21/13 10:01 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> cc Jorge Villalobos.
>
> - Original Message -
>> As part of project Async, we have been working on refactoring
>> Firefox’
>> Session Restore to ensure that it does not block the main thread.
>> Part
>&g
19 matches
Mail list logo
