Re: How would you like to spell check this?

[Jörg Knobloch]

On 2/09/2015 07:17, lalo.mart...@gmail.com wrote:

To put it simply, if I select a language via the context menu, it should still 
be there next time I visit the same site; it's the intended behaviour for the 
current code, and even if I don't think it's ideal, it's currently broken, and 
I don't understand how there can be any resistance to fixing it.


This was reported in bug 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=717433.
I have submitted a simple patch which addresses this problem only 
without trying to do a general clean-up.
I've presented the patch for review and it has been accepted and will be 
part of Firefox 43.


Another problem is still bugging me:

I've installed a German localised version of Firefox and one dictionary, 
the German one. This represents the average non-English speaking user.
* On every new site I visit that supplies a "lang" setting, I have to 
explicitly select the German spell checking dictionary. No default is 
supplied.
* On every new site I visit that *does not* supply a "lang" setting, I 
automatically get the German dictionary selected (since there my last 
choice, which was saved in spellchecker.dictionary, gets applied).


It is a) highly annoying having to set the dictionary over and over and 
b) very inconsistent, since the user doesn't generally analyse the HTML 
content of the site to understand the behaviour.


I would call this another *bug* that can be fixed *without* having to 
come up with a new user interface, which no one in charge does currently 
have interest in or time for.


A patch for this second problem was presented in 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1200533.


I would like to hear a good argument why this confusing behaviour should 
be maintained. I don't consider the following a good argument (quote):
"Believe me when I say that *every single time* we have tried to "fix" 
something here, someone has told us that they actually want a different 
behavior.  As such, I think that any change here must be performed as a 
larger project to fix our spell checking UI.  Even fixing bugs in this 
code has proved to cause more issues."


I even have proof, that this is *not* a good argument, since one aspect 
of the general spell checking problem (bug 717433) already has an 
accepted solution.


Jorg K.

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Permissions API

[Mounir Lamouri]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, at 03:50, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-09-01 9:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > But I agree that we should make it clear that we do not intend to
> > implement a request API.
> 
> There is actually a valid use case for a request API.  It has become 
> clear that we need to expose pasting functionality to the Web, and the 
> most natural way of doing so is document.execCommand("paste").  This 
> operation however cannot be exposed without permission because of 
> privacy reasons.  And this is an API where modifying it to add support 
> for requesting permission doesn't make sense.
> 
> AFAIK right now the Chrome team is experimenting with creating a 
> solution for this use case using the request API.  If they manage to 
> come up with a good UX, I think we need to implement it (at least for 
> the "paste" permission) as well.

Correct.

I don't want to derail the thread and it should probably be a question
for later but I don't understand why websites shouldn't be able to
request permissions when Notifications allows it, Persistent Storage
(latest version) allows it and for the other API it is possible to
actually write a polyfill to request permissions (eg.
navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function(){}) actually request
the permission). We are just making web developers life harder by
requiring them to request permission indirectly.

There are other reasons why request() would benefit the platform. For
example, being able to request permission for a feature that is used in
some kind of Workers (where permissions can't be requested). Though,
again, I don't want to derail the thread.

-- Mounir
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to ship: RC4 disabled by default in Firefox 44

[Masatoshi Kimura]

On 2015/09/02 1:56, Richard Barnes wrote:
> * 42/ASAP: Disable whitelist in Nightly/Aurora; no change in Beta/Release
> * 43: Disable unrestricted fallback in Beta/Release (thus allowing RC4 only
> for whitelisted hosts)
> * 44: Disable all RC4 prefs by default, in all releases

The whitelist contains not only RC4-exclusive servers but also TLS
version intolerant servers.
That said, it would not be a big deal because Chrome 45 has disabled
insecure fallback to TLS 1.0 [1].

[1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=498998
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: How would you like to spell check this?

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jörg Knobloch  wrote:

> I would like to hear a good argument why this confusing behaviour should
> be maintained. I don't consider the following a good argument (quote):
> "Believe me when I say that *every single time* we have tried to "fix"
> something here, someone has told us that they actually want a different
> behavior.  As such, I think that any change here must be performed as a
> larger project to fix our spell checking UI.  Even fixing bugs in this code
> has proved to cause more issues."
>
> I even have proof, that this is *not* a good argument, since one aspect of
> the general spell checking problem (bug 717433) already has an accepted
> solution.
>

I don't intend to pick a fight with Ehsan over this. I believe what he
wrote there. The patch in bug 717433 just seemed like an especially clear
improvement.

Rob
-- 
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
lurpr
.a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
esn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: How would you like to spell check this?

[Jörg Knobloch]

On 2/09/2015 12:24, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

The patch in bug 717433 just seemed like an especially clear
improvement.


Agreed. This was the nastiest problem that affected the most users and 
had the most obvious fix.


As detailed earlier in the thread, there is another puzzling issue that 
should be fixed. If Ehsan doesn't want to be burdened with potential 
issues, I'm happy to look after this area for one year after my change 
in bug 1200533 goes live. No UI change, no mayor behaviour change, just 
some fallback changes. That offer includes fixing regressions and 
handling complaints on BMO. Too good to refuse, isn't it?


Jorg K.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform