Thank you all for your input. I would like to sum up in order to have a
better overview of what we are looking for.
- Everybody agree that we should provide a restriction level to the api.
- The restriction should be on per web page basic and not per port basic
which will be inefficient.
This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image
Formats Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances
JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Study is here:
http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_july_2014/
Blog post is here:
https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/07/15/mozilla-advances-jpeg-encoding-with-mozjpeg-2-0/
___
dev-platform mailing list
Hello Josh,
thank you and all involved for your efforts to make the web faster.
Are there any plans to integrate into other tools, specifically imagemagick?
Or would you leave that up to others?
With all the options available for image processing one can end up with
building quite a complex
On 2014-07-14, 7:22 AM, tzi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+3, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/14 18:35, Vasilis wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of
On 2014-07-15, 1:04 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-07-14, 9:50 AM, Byron Jones wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
1. Can we get a Any direct relationship field in the Relationship
drop-down which means Assignee || Reporter || QA Contact || CC'ed ||
Mentoring (basically all cases
I think I speak for everyone who's debugged JP failures when I say: Huzzah!
Thanks for doing this Mossop :-)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Townsend dtowns...@oxymoronical.com
wrote:
Since forever Jetpack tests in the Firefox trees have been run using our
custom python CFX tool which
On 07/13/2014 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Sadly I don't think that is very safe. I bet a significant majority of our
users have no idea what a serial port is or what will happen if they allow
a website to connect to it.
Agreed. It seems like the concept users are most likely to reliably
On 7/15/14, 11:49 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
Since forever Jetpack tests in the Firefox trees have been run using our
custom python CFX tool which is based on a fork of an ancient version of
mozrunner. This causes us a number of problems. Keeping up with tree
visibility rules is hard. Some
On 7/15/2014 2:49 PM, Dave Townsend wrote:
Since forever Jetpack tests in the Firefox trees have been run using our
custom python CFX tool which is based on a fork of an ancient version of
mozrunner. This causes us a number of problems. Keeping up with tree
visibility rules is hard. Some
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:34:35 AM UTC-7, Josh Aas wrote:
This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image
Formats Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances
JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0.
Would be nice if you guys just implemented
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:34:35 AM UTC-7, Josh Aas wrote:
This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image
Formats Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances
JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0.
Would be nice if you guys just implemented
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:34:35 AM UTC-4, Josh Aas wrote:
This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image
Formats Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances
JPEG Encoding with mozjpeg 2.0.
#1 Would it be possible to have the same
On 7/15/14 12:38 PM, stonecyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:34:35 AM UTC-7, Josh Aas wrote:
This is the discussion thread for Mozilla's July 2014 Lossy Compressed Image Formats
Study and the Mozilla Research blog post entitled Mozilla Advances JPEG Encoding
with mozjpeg 2.0.
On 7/15/14 12:38 PM, stonecyp...@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly there's a reason that people are still hacking video into
JPEGs and using animated GIFs.
People are using animated GIFs, but animated GIFs people are using may
not be animated GIFs [1].
(2014/07/16 5:43), Chris Peterson wrote:
Do
Hi,
The comment at the top of mfbt/DebugOnly.h includes this text:
* Note that DebugOnly instances still take up one byte of space, plus padding,
* when used as members of structs.
I'm in the process of making js::HashTable (a very common class)
smaller by converting some DebugOnly fields to
It may be worth reminding people that this is not specific to DebugOnly but
general to all C++ classes: In C++, there is no such thing as a class with
size 0. So expecting DebugOnlyT to be of size 0 is not misunderstanding
DebugOnly, it is misunderstanding C++. The only way to have empty classes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Benoit Jacob jacob.benoi...@gmail.com wrote:
Having to guard them in #ifdef DEBUG takes away much of the point
of DebugOnlyT, doesn't it?
Yes. For the fields I've converted, I removed the DebugOnly wrapper.
Nick
___
Dear,
When I wanted to use jquery in XUL files, the event was not responded. For
example, codes like $(selectorName).hide(500);has no action. If you provide
me some documents related, I will be very appreciate.
Thanks very much.
Best regards,
Huan Wang
Gregory Szorc wrote on 07/15/2014 09:04 PM:
On 7/15/14, 11:49 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
Since forever Jetpack tests in the Firefox trees have been run using our
custom python CFX tool which is based on a fork of an ancient version of
mozrunner. This causes us a number of problems. Keeping up
20 matches
Mail list logo
