ChromeConstructor has been removed

With the new constructor syntax described in , we no longer have a [ChromeConstructor] extended attribute. If you want to make an interface only constructible from system code, you can do: interface

New Web IDL constructor syntax

As of today, the syntax for Web IDL constructors no longer involves an extended attribute on the interface. There's now something that looks more like a method named "constructor" with no explicitly-defined return type. So this: [Constructor(DOMString str)] interface MyInterface {}; is

Re: Intent to unship: TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:50 PM Henri Sivonen wrote: > Do we know what the situation looks like for connections to RFC 1918 > addresses? > That's a hard one to even speculate about, and that's all we really have there. Our telemetry doesn't really allow us to gain insight into that. The big

Intent to ship: CSS properties text-decoration-skip-ink, text-decoration-thickness, and text-underline-offset

As of today (Sept 12 2019), I've turned on support for the CSS properties text-decoration-skip-ink, text-decoration-thickness, and text-underline-offset, on all platforms. These features have been developed behind the preferences "layout.css.text-underline-offset.enabled",

Re: Intent to ship: Event-based form participation

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:11 PM Daniel Veditz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 AM John Dai wrote: > >> Is this feature enabled by default in sandboxed iframes? No. >> > > But it's not specifically disabled in sandboxed frames or behind a > non-default preference setting, right? > Right,

Re: Intent to unship: TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:03 AM Martin Thomson wrote: > Telemetry shows that TLS 1.0 usage is much higher > than we would ordinarily tolerate for this sort of deprecation Do we know what the situation looks like for connections to RFC 1918 addresses? > Finally, we will disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1