Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

2016-10-22 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2016-10-22 9:32 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Chris Peterson > wrote: > >> On 10/21/2016 3:11 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> Does this mean that we'd be breaking one in 5 geolocation requests as a > result of this? That seems super high. :( >>> Agreed

Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

2016-10-22 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2016-10-22 10:16 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/22/16 9:38 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: >> I'm not picky about how exactly we turn this off, as long as the >> functionality goes away. Chrome and Safari both immediately call the >> error >> handler with the same error as if the user had denied pe

Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

2016-10-22 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 10/22/16 9:38 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: I'm not picky about how exactly we turn this off, as long as the functionality goes away. Chrome and Safari both immediately call the error handler with the same error as if the user had denied permission. We could do that too, it would just be a littl

Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

2016-10-22 Thread Richard Barnes
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2016-10-21 3:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > The geolocation API allows web pages to request the user's geolocation, > > drawing from things like GPS on mobile, and doing WiFi / IP based > > geolocation on desktop. > > > > Due to the pri

Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

2016-10-22 Thread Richard Barnes
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 10/21/2016 3:11 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > >> > Does this mean that we'd be breaking one in 5 geolocation requests as a >>> > result of this? That seems super high. :( >>> >> Agreed. For example, my understanding is that this will break

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-10-22 Thread Martin Thomson
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:16 PM, wrote: > My concern is that by killing digital certificate updates and TLS updates, > still in use machines whose main purpose is Internet access are essentially > bricked. Yep, I just designated a relatives machine to recycling on that basis. I could have upda

Re: Windows XP and Vista Long Term Support Plan

2016-10-22 Thread keithgallistel
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Kyle Huey wrote: > No. These machines should not be on the Internet anymore. If the > operating system vendor is no longer supporting their product with > security releases an out of date TLS stack is a minor problem compared > to the remote code e