Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the
spec does not require it. What if browser vendors similarly agreed to
never send the User-Agent header over HTTP/2?
If legacy content relies on User-Agent checks, it could:
* Stick with HTTP/1.1.
* Use HTTP/2 connection
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do server-side feature detection in
order to
On 27/01/2015 21:31, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather we
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:31, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com a écrit :
Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I could
see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch support,
and OS.
We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:19, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com a écrit :
I have used Nightly without any User-Agent header (using the Modify Headers
add-on) for about a month. I have not found any major problems, but I'm sure
they exist. :)
I have used for a while the User-Agent:
So I already blogged about this on planet mozilla, but I figured it would
probably also be worth mentioning here that a lot of work has gone into
mozregression (a tool for automatically determining when a regression was
introduced into Firefox by bisecting builds on ftp.mozilla.org) over the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Chris Peterson wrote:
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
does not require it.
THe IE people have stated repeatedly that they will support it over plain TCP
eventually though, it was just not done in the preview.
What if browser
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
Sounds good! +1 from me.
Bike shedding:
- Make Range() and ReverseRange() templates, so you can use them with any
type that supports the appropriate operators. This also implies removing
‘Integer’ from their names, I
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
Sounds good! +1 from me.
Bike shedding:
- Make Range() and ReverseRange() templates, so you can use them with any
type that supports the appropriate operators. This also implies removing
‘Integer’ from their names, I
DOM Level 3 Events (D3E) defines an attribute of KeyboardEvent, .code, it allows web
applications to check physical key.
The specs are:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dom3events/raw-file/tip/html/DOM3-Events.html#code-motivation
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dom3events/raw-file/tip/html/DOM3Events-code.html
Hi,
I just landed on mozilla-inbound the patches for
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1124973, which replaced
PL_DHashTableLookup() with PL_DHashTableSearch().
(If you haven't heard of PL_DHashTableLookup(), that's because it is
quite new.
I thought someone did experiments with the Debugger API and concluded that
using it to capture code coverage was too slow to be practical: we need
something built into the engine that is fast.
Also, part of the Engineering Operations Strategic Plan is to provide
better data and metrics (including
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com wrote:
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
does not require it. What if browser vendors similarly agreed to never send
the User-Agent header over HTTP/2?
If legacy content relies on
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather we didn't for similar reasons.
If we're
Sounds good! +1 from me.
Bike shedding:
- Make Range() and ReverseRange() templates, so you can use them with any type
that supports the appropriate operators. This also implies removing ‘Integer’
from their names, I think.
- It’d be nice to add a constructor that supports specifying both the
I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely
iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions:
tbsaunde uint32_t count = array.Length(); for (uint32_t i = length - 1; i
length; i--)
smaug iterate from length() to 1 and index using i - 1
jcranmer for (uint32_t i =
On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather
19 matches
Mail list logo
