This is going to be a certified API, right?
On 01.05.2015 23:43, Tamara Hills wrote:
Hi All,
Summary: We want to expose a Web API to Gaia to collect metrics for FxOS.
This API would leverage the existing Gecko toolkit/components/telemetry
capabilities to provide histograms to Telemetry
Tamara Hills thi...@mozilla.com writes:
Summary: We want to expose a Web API to Gaia to collect metrics for FxOS.
This API would leverage the existing Gecko toolkit/components/telemetry
capabilities to provide histograms to Telemetry Servers for analysis by
data owners.
This is interesting.
On 01/05/15 19:02, Matthew Phillips wrote:
You must have missed my original email:
It's paramount that the web remain a frictionless place where creating a
website is dead simple.
That is not true today of people who want to run their own hosting. So
people who want frictionless use
On 03/05/15 03:39, Xidorn Quan wrote:
This has been happening in the Internet in China. I would suggest you use
360 Secure Browser, one of the major browsers in China. They completely
consider the experience of developers and users. Their browser allows user
to access a website even if the
On 01/05/15 20:40, Eric Shepherd wrote:
In my case, the situation is that I have classic computers running 1-10
megahertz processors, for which encrypting and decrypting SSL is not a
plausible option.
For this edge case, I would say the solution is to use a proxy, run on
one of your other
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote:
On 03/05/15 03:39, Xidorn Quan wrote:
This has been happening in the Internet in China. I would suggest you use
360 Secure Browser, one of the major browsers in China. They completely
consider the experience of
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Richard Barnes rbar...@mozilla.com wrote:
3. HTTP caching is an important feature for constrained networks.
I think it important to emphasize that the affected case is shared
caching in the form of forward proxies. https doesn't prevent caching
in the browser or
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Nicholas Nethercote n.netherc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please refrain from further discussion until you can avoid making
crude personal attacks such as these.
I now mandate that you (and everyone you know) shall only do ethernet
trough pigeon carriers. There are
On 5/2/15 05:25, Florian Bösch wrote:
I now mandate that you (and everyone you know) shall only do ethernet
trough pigeon carriers. There are great advantages to doing this, and
I can recommend a number of first rate pigeon breeders which will sell
you pigeons bred for that purpose. I will not
On 2015-05-04 8:37 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think without empirical evidence showing the *current* (as opposed
to arguments from 20 years ago) importance of shared caching on the
supposed constrained networks--i.e. empirical evidence showing that
the shared cache hit rate is is a
(Followup questions or comments to mozilla.dev.extensions only, please.)
With the landing of bug 1159737, I have removed support for binary XPCOM
components in extensions. This is planned to ride the Firefox 40 train.
This change is necessary because we no longer expose or intend to expose
a
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
I will be updating MDN documentation and removing or archiving old
documentation about binary XPCOM components in the next few weeks.
Please ping me before outright deleting anything; I'd like to be sure
we're able to continue to support people embedding Gecko or
On 5/4/15 11:24, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Adam Roach a...@mozilla.com
mailto:a...@mozilla.com wrote:
others who want to work for a better future
A client of mine whom I polled if they can move to HTTPs with their
server stated they do not have the time and
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Adam Roach a...@mozilla.com wrote:
You have made some well-thought-out contributions to conversations at
Mozilla in the past. I'm a little sad that you're choosing not to
participate in a useful way here.
I think this is a pretty relevant contribution.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Adam Roach a...@mozilla.com wrote:
others who want to work for a better future
A client of mine whom I polled if they can move to HTTPs with their server
stated they do not have the time and resources to do so. So the fullscreen
button will just stop working.
I agree HTTPS makes information safer and protects it¹s integrity, making
it (once again) safer.
However;
1) are the benefits worth the millions of man-hours, and countless dollars
this will cost?
2) why is Mozilla suddenly everyone¹s nanny?
- Shawn
On 5/1/15, 2:44 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Adam Roach a...@mozilla.com wrote:
You have made some well-thought-out contributions to conversations at
Mozilla in the past. I'm a little sad that you're choosing not to
participate in
On Wednesday 2015-04-08 17:03 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
HTML5 Web Messaging
http://www.w3.org/TR/webmessaging/
There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of
On 05/04/2015 09:39 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
Here is what I wrote that client:
[...] For security reasons browsers want to disable fullscreen if you
are not serving the website over HTTPS.
Are you sure this is true? Where has it been proposed to completely
disable fullscreen for non-HTTPS
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Holbert dholb...@mozilla.com wrote:
(I think there's a strong case for disabling *persistent* fullscreen
permission, for the reasons described in ekr's response to you here. I
haven't seen any proposal for going beyond that, but I might've missed it.)
A
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
This would be more useful if you explained what they considered the cost
of converting to HTTPS so, so we could discuss ways to ameliorate that cost.
I
It looks like I inadvertently landed this change on an the wrong branch, so
we aren't pointing to it in production (although we were for a short time
when I tested last week). I'll straighten this out in the morning. Sorry
for the inconvenience.
Chris
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Christopher
The patch in the bug removes it from the shared manifest parser,
Thunderbird and SeaMonkey are out of luck unless they fork this.
-Dan Veditz
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
The patch in the bug isn't going to work anyway because we still need
binary components for b2g, so no panic needed on the TB/SM side.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com wrote:
The patch in the bug removes it from the shared manifest parser,
Thunderbird and
On 05/05/2015 08:22, Daniel Veditz wrote:
The patch in the bug removes it from the shared manifest parser,
Thunderbird and SeaMonkey are out of luck unless they fork this. -Dan
Veditz
That sounds rather drastic. How does one fork only this feature without
forking the whole of mozilla-central?
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:06:21PM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
The patch in the bug isn't going to work anyway because we still need
binary components for b2g, so no panic needed on the TB/SM side.
The patch in the bug doesn't disable *application* binary components, it
disables *extensions*
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Leman Bennett (Omega X)
Redacted.For.Spam@request.contact wrote:
Inquiring minds would like to know.
At the moment, e10s tabs is still somewhat slower than non-e10s. Multiple
content processes would go a long way for more responsive navigation and
less
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
I'm going to refer you at this point to the W3C HTML design principles of
priority of constituencies
On 5/4/15 6:07 PM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
I will be updating MDN documentation and removing or archiving old
documentation about binary XPCOM components in the next few weeks.
Please ping me before outright deleting anything; I'd like to be sure
we're able to continue
Sounds great! I've filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1161282 for this.
According to
https://secure.pub.build.mozilla.org/builddata/reports/reportor/daily/highscores/highscores.html,
we still have a ton of people using '-p all -u all' on try
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:12 PM,
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 7:22:26 PM UTC-4, Christopher Manchester wrote:
You can now add --tag arguments to try syntax and they will get passed to
test harnesses in your try push. Details of the implementation are in bug
978846, but if you're interested in passing other arguments from try
Great!
Without getting too deep into the exact details about animation /
notifications / permissions, it sounds like Florian's concern RE
browsers want to disable fullscreen if you are not serving the website
over HTTPS may be unfounded, then.
(Unless Florian or Martin have some extra
That looks like a valid use of the feature assuming the manifest was
annotated correctly. I'm not sure what went wrong, I'll reply here when I
figure out what went wrong or file a bug and investigate further.
Chris
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:23 PM, kgu...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Thursday, April
Inquiring minds would like to know.
At the moment, e10s tabs is still somewhat slower than non-e10s.
Multiple content processes would go a long way for more responsive
navigation and less stalls on the one content process. That stall
spinner is getting a LOT of hate at the moment.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Martin Thomson m...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Holbert dholb...@mozilla.com
wrote:
(I think there's a strong case for disabling *persistent* fullscreen
permission, for the reasons described in ekr's response to you here. I
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
I'm going to refer you at this point to the W3C HTML design principles of
priority of constituencies
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies).
In case of conflict, consider users over authors
We're adding UX to clearly indicate http:// or https:// in fullscreen while
still meeting the user desire for secure one-click-to-fullscreen. The
latest and greatest proposal posted here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1129061
--Jet
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Eric Rescorla
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Xidorn Quan quanxunz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Martin Thomson m...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Holbert dholb...@mozilla.com
wrote:
(I think there's a strong case for disabling *persistent* fullscreen
Wait - you're telling me that it is now possible to limit try pushes but
not just jobs but tests within jobs?! Stop the presses: this is huge! If
used by the masses, this could drastically reduce try turnaround times and
decrease automation load and costs.
Could we encourage use of --tag by
39 matches
Mail list logo
