Re: Intent to implement and ship: HTMLMarqueeElement

2018-10-12 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 10/12/18 1:56 PM, Brian Grinstead wrote: Summary: Motion is a key component of modern web design, and is the premier... Fire. The premier fire so we can have fire and motion [1]. Or maybe it's just a dumpster fire? ;) The proposed change looks great to me. -Boris [1]

Moving Windows MSVC Builds Back To Tier 1

2018-10-12 Thread Ryan VanderMeulen
When we made the decision to switch to clang-cl for our Windows builds, MSVC builds and tests were kept running as Tier 2 jobs in CI to ensure that they continued working in the event of an emergency switch-back caused by any last-minute clang-cl compatibility issues. Thankfully, no such issues

Re: Moving Windows MSVC Builds Back To Tier 1

2018-10-12 Thread Ryan VanderMeulen
As was noted in the bug, deciding to explicitly un-support MSVC is a decision which merits wider discussion and is not something I wanted to tackle in that bug. -Ryan On 10/12/2018 4:08 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: If we've made the decision to stick with clang-cl, why would we continue to

Intent to implement and ship: HTMLMarqueeElement

2018-10-12 Thread Brian Grinstead
Summary: Motion is a key component of modern web design, and is the premier... just kidding. Gecko currently ships as an HTMLDivElement with the web-exposed properties attached via in-content XBL [0][1]. As part of the process of removing in-content XBL, I intend to implement and ship

Re: Moving Windows MSVC Builds Back To Tier 1

2018-10-12 Thread Dave Townsend
If we've made the decision to stick with clang-cl, why would we continue to support MSVC builds going forwards? On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:06 PM Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: > When we made the decision to switch to clang-cl for our Windows builds, > MSVC builds and tests were kept running as Tier 2

Re: Intent to implement and ship: WebP image support

2018-10-12 Thread Jean-Yves Avenard
On 11/10/2018 6:03 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: Are we bringing in a new third party library for this? (Seems like yes?) Who else uses it/audits it? Does anyone else fuzz it? Is it in OSS-fuzz? Are we fuzzing it? How does upstream behave? Do they cut releases or do they just have continual

Re: Intent to implement and ship: WebP image support

2018-10-12 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:43 PM Andrew Osmond wrote: > Is this feature restricted to secure contexts?: No, it isn't. This is not a > new API, instead it is just accepting more types of content via existing > channels. This isn't the rationale you're looking for. New formats would generally be