On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
> In practice, I kind of doubt that standard libraries would actually include
> multiple implementations of the web platform.
>
It also seems like the implementation(s) that get included will essentially
be those those authors devote the
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:04 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> It feels like this bakes into the C++ language the idea that a
> machine only ever needs a single implementation of the web platform.
>
> I (and I think many others at Mozilla) think that users are better
> served by competition among
On Wednesday 2018-07-18 12:45 -0400, Botond Ballo wrote:
> With the proposal for a standard 2D graphics library now on ice [1],
> members of the C++ standards committee have been investigating
> alternative ways of giving C++ programmers a standard way to write
> graphical and interactive
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> If the intent is that the default behavior is to speak http, what are the
> committee's thoughts on things like sandboxing, spectre mitigations,
> process-per-origin, etc?
>
> This last is particularly concerning in terms of API surface,
On 7/18/18 5:18 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
My reading of the proposal is that that's an extension mechanism for
the program to be able to override handling of standard URI schemes,
or invent new ones (such as for serving a page from a string in the
C++ program's memory), but if e.g. the program
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/18/18 4:54 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
>>
>> Either to include one, or to be able to find and use one provided by
>> the OS/platform.
>
>
> Ah, ok.
>
> And in the latter case, to disable whatever network stack the OS-provided
> thing has,
On 7/18/18 4:54 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
Either to include one, or to be able to find and use one provided by
the OS/platform.
Ah, ok.
And in the latter case, to disable whatever network stack the
OS-provided thing has, if any, and substitute its own, right?
-Boris
On 7/18/18 4:59 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
I can imagine that embedded implementations wouldn't include
, their documentation would be clear about this, and their
users would be OK with this situation.
Oh, sure. I was talking specifically about stdlib implementation that
are aiming to comply
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Am I correct in my reading that this would require the C++ standard library
>> to include an implementation of the web platform?
>
> Either to include one, or to be able to find and
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Am I correct in my reading that this would require the C++ standard library
> to include an implementation of the web platform?
Either to include one, or to be able to find and use one provided by
the OS/platform.
Cheers,
Botond
CCing snorp.
I guess it's interesting to see how the geckoview API differs from the
webview API, and which of those differences are related to goal of that
C++ API, and which are more browser-focused.
And if the C++ API should be also browser-focused, in the end.
Not making any statement on
On 7/18/18 12:45 PM, Botond Ballo wrote:
A recent proposal along these lines is for a standard embedding
facility called "web_view", inspired by existing embedding APIs like
Android's WebView:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1108r0.html
Botond,
Thank you for
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
> It feels like the committee is burnt out on trying to solve the
> general library problem, but contemplating something massively complex
> like this instead doesn't follow, and is an answer to the wrong
> question.
>
> Make it easier to
It feels like the committee is burnt out on trying to solve the
general library problem, but contemplating something massively complex
like this instead doesn't follow, and is an answer to the wrong
question.
Make it easier to integrate libraries and we wouldn't see kludge
proposals like this.
Hi everyone,
With the proposal for a standard 2D graphics library now on ice [1],
members of the C++ standards committee have been investigating
alternative ways of giving C++ programmers a standard way to write
graphical and interactive applications, in a way that leverages
existing standards
> It might be better to have some indicator that the analysis *did* run,
> because otherwise, you can't tell if you should wait longer for the
> result or whether your code is clean.
Originally, our bot *did* publish a comment when analysis didn't find any
defects in a patch, but this was causing
16 matches
Mail list logo
