Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

[L. David Baron]

On Thursday 2016-09-29 10:42 +0200, Ms2ger wrote:
> On 29/09/16 03:02, L. David Baron wrote:
> > 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 objections through
> > this Friday, September 30.
> > 
> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> > support or oppose it.

> Given that (as I expected) the merger of the HTML WG with its profoundly
> dysfunctional processes into the productive WebApps WG created a
> completely useless WG, more focused on adding W3C logos to existing
> standards than doing actual work, my proposal is to disband this WG and
> move any remaining useful work to the WHATWG.

I don't think suggesting that would be particularly productive.

Also, has the quality of the work that was previously in Web Apps
degraded significantly?  (At least, more than would be expected as a
result of the departure of one of the Web Apps group's chairs?)  If
you think it has, how would you show that it has?

-David

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Removal of B2G from mozilla-central

[Chris Peterson]

On 9/29/2016 11:46 AM, Sebastian Hengst wrote:

as has been announced earlier
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.fxos/FoAwifahNPY the
Boot 2 Gecko (B2G) code will be removed from mozilla-central.


Is Gonk used anywhere besides B2G? Can we remove all Gonk code, e.g. 
dom/camera/Gonk* and #ifdef MOZ_WIDGET_GONK?

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

Re: Intent to implement: CSS initial-letter property

[Jeremy Chen]

2016-09-30 9:18 GMT+08:00 Xidorn Quan :

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016, at 04:04 PM, Jeremy Chen wrote:
> > Summary: Initial-letters have been widely used in typographic printing
> > for
> > long. However, it is not handy to put initial-letters on web pages. Web
> > developers/designers have suffered from doing massive math calculations
> > while laying out a initial-letter through :first-letter pseudo element,
> > and
> > afterward, they may still bump into cross-browser issues. I'd like to
> > implement this property to ease web authors' pain. Also, I believe this
> > property should not be absence from the modern layout.
>
> IIRC, your plan is to only implement "initial-letter" for :first-letter
> pseudo element for now, and try to ship that without having the property
> available for inline-level first child of a block. Is that right? If
> yes, you should probably mention that in your "intend to ship" when you
> finish the implementation.
>

Xidorn, yes, you're right.
The implementation plan is to only implement initial-letter property for
:first-letter, just like what Safari did at present.
As to shipping criteria, like David said in [1], it depends whether
supporting inlines as well is a lot of extra work.
I do plan to mention the shipping detail in another "intent to ship" when I
finish most of the implementation.
I guess it would be no harm to mention the plan in this thread as well.
Thank you for the pointers. :-)

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1223880#c25
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement: CSS initial-letter property

[Xidorn Quan]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016, at 04:04 PM, Jeremy Chen wrote:
> Summary: Initial-letters have been widely used in typographic printing
> for
> long. However, it is not handy to put initial-letters on web pages. Web
> developers/designers have suffered from doing massive math calculations
> while laying out a initial-letter through :first-letter pseudo element,
> and
> afterward, they may still bump into cross-browser issues. I'd like to
> implement this property to ease web authors' pain. Also, I believe this
> property should not be absence from the modern layout.

IIRC, your plan is to only implement "initial-letter" for :first-letter
pseudo element for now, and try to ship that without having the property
available for inline-level first child of a block. Is that right? If
yes, you should probably mention that in your "intend to ship" when you
finish the implementation.

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

Removal of B2G from mozilla-central

[Sebastian Hengst]

Hi,

as has been announced earlier 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.fxos/FoAwifahNPY the 
Boot 2 Gecko (B2G) code will be removed from mozilla-central.


A tracking bug has been created for that work: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306391 So if you remove 
code which affects B2G, please let it block that bug.


At the moment, I am not aware of any changes which already landed and 
have an impact on B2G, so the current tip of mozilla-central should be 
good to build (tests aren't running anymore in automation): 
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9baec74b3db1bf005c66ae2f50bafbdb02c3be38


If you want to run tests locally or in a new B2G repo, be aware that 
some test infrastructure already has its B2G support removed and 
mozilla-central will also drop the meta information about which tests 
should be skipped on B2G.


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

Re: Buildbot Try artifact expiration

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 9/29/16 5:15 PM, dmitch...@mozilla.com wrote:

Op maandag 26 september 2016 15:28:56 UTC-4 schreef Boris Zbarsky:

OK.  In my experience, it's very useful to have logs available longer
than just two weeks.  If nothing else, some of the things that start
trying to look at them only happen about once a week


Is that still true when limited just to try?


Yes.


I kind of pity any automation that's reading logs from try jobs, since it's 
such a collection of crazy failing pushes..


Sure.  And stuff doesn't get starred intermittent correctly on try very 
much.  But it does happen some, and can be useful.



Is there a different expiration interval that would be more appropriate for 
logs?   28 days?


If it's easy to do that, it would be quite helpful, yes.  For my 
purposes 28 days should be pretty good.


-Boris

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

Re: Buildbot Try artifact expiration

[dmitchell]

Op maandag 26 september 2016 15:28:56 UTC-4 schreef Boris Zbarsky:
> OK.  In my experience, it's very useful to have logs available longer 
> than just two weeks.  If nothing else, some of the things that start 
> trying to look at them only happen about once a week

Is that still true when limited just to try?  I kind of pity any automation 
that's reading logs from try jobs, since it's such a collection of crazy 
failing pushes..

Is there a different expiration interval that would be more appropriate for 
logs?   28 days? 

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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

[Tantek Çelik]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:
> On 9/29/16 10:46 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>>
>>> New deliverables:
>>>Microdata
>>
>>
>> This should be dropped from the charter (FO).
>>
>> Ironic to see this since Firefox (release!) just dropped support for
>> Microdata
>
>
> Are they talking about the HTML microdata API (what we dropped) or just
> specifying the HTML microdata attributes?  The latter seems fine as a
> deliverable, generally speaking.  The deliverable doesn't actually say what
> it's about.

All of what was previously abandoned. The charter
http://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#deliverables
links to the 2013 Microdata Note.

"just specifying the HTML microdata attributes" seems like a waste of
time for a WG that already has lots of REC-track deliverables (and
sometimes shows a need for more focus, e.g. what happened with
5.1CR/PR vs what the current charter says about modularizing [1]).

Similarly, if there's anything else in the new charter that anyone
else thinks we should specifically cut (beyond "just cut it all"), I'm
interested in hearing about it. Cutting inessential things in this WG
will help with better focus and use of time / resources.

Tantek

[1] https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 9/29/16 11:21 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

All of what was previously abandoned. The charter
http://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#deliverables
links to the 2013 Microdata Note.


I did see that it linked to the note.  It wasn't clear whether that 
means "revive everything in that note".


I agree that reviving the microdata API is a non-starter.  It was tried, 
it failed.



"just specifying the HTML microdata attributes" seems like a waste of
time


That's fair.

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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

[Tantek Çelik]

Note the major changes summary:

https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#changes-from-wp1

This is my first pass review (already found problems).

I may try to review in more depth to see what (if any) specific
wording changes there are in the charter (is there a paragraph by
paragraph diff avaiable?)


> New deliverables:
>Microdata

This should be dropped from the charter (FO).

Ironic to see this since Firefox (release!) just dropped support for
Microdata (a form of incubation failure at the least), and last time
it was brought up in HTML WG, no one bothered to step up to edit it so
it got abandoned as a note (2013).


> Removed as deliverables:
>Streams; URL; XHR1

This seems good to me, and reflective of the reality of referencing
equivalent WHATWG specs, and increasingly positive culture towards
doing so.


> Marked as deliverables to be taken up if incubation suggests likely success:
>  Background Synchronisation; Filesystem API; FindText API; HTML Import; Input 
> Methods; Packaging; Quota API

This section is confusing and weakly worded.

Expanded just below this link:
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#web-workers
as Potential deliverables (no id / fraglink)

Either these are some sort of odd pre-incubation special treatment
(bad / unnecessary in a charter), or if this is a claim that the
listed specs *have* passed incubation, I'd expect citations that
document as such (not just a link to an intent template). Otherwise
wait for specs to pass incubation, document as such, and then propose
a charter update with actual (not "potential") deliverables.

I'd prefer that these "Potential deliverables" be dropped (FO), unless
citations are provided to incubation successes, and if so, then just
make them "deliverables".

Tantek



On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:02 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> 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 objections through
> this Friday, September 30.
>
> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> support or oppose it.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
> 턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
>  Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>  What I was walling in or walling out,
>  And to whom I was like to give offense.
>- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement: CSS initial-letter property

[Jeremy Chen]

2016-09-29 17:10 GMT+08:00 Patrick Brosset :

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Jeremy Chen 
> wrote:
>
>> DevTools bug: None needed, I think.
>>
>
> I think there are 2 things DevTools could do to help authors
> use/discover/understand this feature:
>
> 1. initial-letter only applies to ::first-letter pseudos or inline-level
> first child of a block container.
> To me, this means that some people may find themselves trying the new
> initial-letter property and not seeing it work, just because they're not
> using it in the right CSS rule.
> So, similar to how we display invalid properties in DevTools today (try
> adding foo:bar; in the inspector for instance, you'll see a warning sign),
> we should also display "useless" properties.
> For instance initial-letter:2; inside a div { display:block; } rule should
> have no effect, right?
>
In that case it'd be nice to also have a warning sign next to the property
> telling authors the reason why the property did not apply.
> I think we have this captured on bugzilla already:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1303833 and
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306054
>

Yes, thank you for filing/mentioning these two bugs. I agree providing
reasons why a property is "useless" would be helpful for authors.


> 2. This property is related to the concept of baselines in CSS. And I
> think it would be a huge help for authors using this property and other
> text alignment and sizing properties if DevTools could simply display
> baselines in the page, overlaid on an element.
> I'd be very interested to talk about this more with someone working on
> Gecko who would know how this could be done, and I've just filed this bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306240
>

Great idea, I think this would help web authors a lot while doing text
alignment designs.


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

Re: Intent to implement: CSS initial-letter property

[Patrick Brosset]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Jeremy Chen  wrote:

> DevTools bug: None needed, I think.
>

I think there are 2 things DevTools could do to help authors
use/discover/understand this feature:

1. initial-letter only applies to ::first-letter pseudos or inline-level
first child of a block container.
To me, this means that some people may find themselves trying the new
initial-letter property and not seeing it work, just because they're not
using it in the right CSS rule.
So, similar to how we display invalid properties in DevTools today (try
adding foo:bar; in the inspector for instance, you'll see a warning sign),
we should also display "useless" properties.
For instance initial-letter:2; inside a div { display:block; } rule should
have no effect, right?
In that case it'd be nice to also have a warning sign next to the property
telling authors the reason why the property did not apply.
I think we have this captured on bugzilla already:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1303833 and
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306054

2. This property is related to the concept of baselines in CSS. And I think
it would be a huge help for authors using this property and other text
alignment and sizing properties if DevTools could simply display baselines
in the page, overlaid on an element.
I'd be very interested to talk about this more with someone working on
Gecko who would know how this could be done, and I've just filed this bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1306240

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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

[Ms2ger]

On 29/09/16 03:02, L. David Baron wrote:
> 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 objections through
> this Friday, September 30.
> 
> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> support or oppose it.
> 
> -David
> 

Given that (as I expected) the merger of the HTML WG with its profoundly
dysfunctional processes into the productive WebApps WG created a
completely useless WG, more focused on adding W3C logos to existing
standards than doing actual work, my proposal is to disband this WG and
move any remaining useful work to the WHATWG.

HTH
Ms2ger
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Intent to implement: CSS initial-letter property

[Jeremy Chen]

Summary: Initial-letters have been widely used in typographic printing for
long. However, it is not handy to put initial-letters on web pages. Web
developers/designers have suffered from doing massive math calculations
while laying out a initial-letter through :first-letter pseudo element, and
afterward, they may still bump into cross-browser issues. I'd like to
implement this property to ease web authors' pain. Also, I believe this
property should not be absence from the modern layout.

Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1223880

Spec.: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline/#initial-letter-styling

Platform coverage: All platforms

Preference behind which this will be implemented:
layout.css.initial-letter.enabled

DevTools bug: None needed, I think.

Support in other browsers: So far, Safari is the only browser which
supports this with -webkit- prefixed. I can't find a bug on both Chrome and
Edge, so I assume there's no sign from them at the moment.


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