The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Platform Working Group (formerly Web Applications WG & HTML WG)
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Sep/0001.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or
I second the sentiment: it's clear that DXR needs a real manual. I've got the
start of one at https://dxr.readthedocs.io/en/latest/use.html. So if you want
to file PRs against
https://github.com/mozilla/dxr/blob/master/docs/source/use.rst, we can grow
that into a proper manual, import it into
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:19 AM, David Teller wrote:
>
> * CommonJS
>
​Just a heads up: the devtools have been using CommonJS modules and lazily
requiring modules for a couple years now. If you don't want to jump
directly to ES modules, reusing our infrastructure is
Just a friendly reminder to please consider filling out this survey if
you haven't already done so. We've already gotten a lot of great
feedback and we'd love to get more! It will be open for responses until
Friday the 30th.
Thanks!
-Ryan
On 9/23/2016 3:25 PM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
Thanks everyone for answers. This is helpful, but why don't I see any
help like this right on DXR? Why do I have to ask on dev-platform?
According identifiers not found on DXR I presume MXR might suffered the
same issue, so no blame for DXR here. I was just confused by not being
able to
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, David Teller wrote:
> "why": because you wrote "The former is a more tricky." in your previous
> message. If it's not, I'm quite happy to not remove them :)
>
> For reference, "the former" is a snippet such as:
>
> if (needed) {
>
\o/, let's join forces :)
I admit that I haven't thought at all about the impact on exceptions. If
we migrate to ES6 modules, then the problem is something that we don't
need to handle. If we migrate to CommonJS modules with a loader built
into XPConnect, I think that we can solve this without
7 matches
Mail list logo