On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote:
Why not simply verify that the list of actual fails equals the list of
expected fails, and report items that are only in one of the two lists?
That would be a bit more robust, yes, and it should be doable without
much work. It
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Neil n...@parkwaycc.co.uk wrote:
Is there any way we can make it so that the prefixed version doesn't work
unless you attempt (and presumably fail) to detect the unprefixed version?
What purpose would the prefix serve in such a scenario?
--
Henri Sivonen
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of. Well, from time to time we add a new DOM API which breaks a
website because they expect that name to be available as an expando property
or something.
Prefixing doesn't fix this problem. It only defers it,
On 2012-11-10 12:58 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
What exactly is the benefit here? As far as I know, using namespace A;
using namespace B; where both A and B define Foo doesn't actually cause a
compile error unless/until the code actually references Foo.
The scenario I'm concerned with is
Hi everyone,
Can we quickly revisit the question of whether to have one of Touch or
Tablet in our UA string under some circumstances? We need to work out
how Windows 8 Metro fits into our plans (bug 787786), plus the new pile
of touch-enabled laptops and desktops that I see in the glossy ads
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
Can we quickly revisit the question of whether to have one of Touch or
Tablet in our UA string under some circumstances? We need to work out how
Windows 8 Metro fits into our plans (bug 787786), plus the new pile of
On 12/11/12 16:07, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
A) Use Touch to indicate has a touch-sensitive screen (and is not already
marked 'Mobile'). This would lead to us using it on tablets, Windows 8
machines, and any other desktop PC with a touchscreen. It would not be
removed if a keyboard was _also_
I don’t see how this information will be of any use in deciding how to present
content, and will likely be used in the wrong way which will break user
experiences.
We have a related situation with W3C touch event interfaces. Web authors are
using their presence as a way to detect mobile
Touch++, again. Same points I said in September.
Gerv, do you have an online place that captures the discussion? The reason
I ask this is my interest to really understand what is the current
assumption nowadays on what UA stands for and the complexities involved in
this discussion. Plus I wanted
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 12/11/12 16:07, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
D) Use neither, like Chrome. UA sniffing is evil. Developers should use
the
presence of a touch API to detect touch capability, and use flexible
layout
to adapt to whatever
As Jim mentioned, we've seen problems with our current browser because, when we
turn on touch event interfaces in the browser (i.e. document.createTouchEvent),
sites start to assume that this is a touch enabled browser and only a touch
enabled browser. i.e. users using a mouse on a touch
Here is my personal suggestion for how we should handle this in our
Metro browser, and the reasoning behind my proposal. This is meant to
be a minimal step to bring Firefox for Metro in line with other
platforms, without making changes to any other products. It might need
to be tweaked if we
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
adds a symbol to namespace A, and gets an unexpected break possibly miles
Hey all,
Windows 8 metro browser work continues to progress. Within the next couple of
months we would like to finish up the process of merging elm over to
mozilla-central so we can turn the metro browser bits on in mc nightlies.
However before we can do this we'll need to add the latest
On Nov 8, 3:46 pm, richardson.balca...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just reading the effort of installing open web apps locally, I'm
assuming the strategy shift that I'm talking about is that Mozilla is betting
on Firefox as their application framework, that would make sense not to
support
On 2012-11-12 1:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
adds a symbol to namespace
On 11/12/12 7:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Can we quickly revisit the question of whether to have one of Touch or
Tablet in our UA string under some circumstances? We need to work out
how Windows 8 Metro fits into our plans (bug 787786)
N. :/
The UA is such a disaster. I wish
On 11/12/2012 10:44 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
adds a symbol to
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:47:32PM -0800, Alex Keybl wrote:
Bug 799295 [1], the driver for this thread, is still an open issue for
FF18 (shipping in 6 weeks). The JS team's recommendation remains to
disable PGO on Linux. According to Taras, the major benefits of PGO on
Linux are for a
19 matches
Mail list logo
