Application developers have the ability to specify additional menuitems for
contextmenus via
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#context-menus
however they are currently shown in addition to the default items, we are
looking to implement an
Google docs is a very good use case, In a previous job I implemented a web
based spreadsheet and we also had to implement our own contextmenu and
surpress the default because of the way that it conflicts.
Its a catch 22, applications will continue to hijack the default menu
unless the
We specifically chose a User Agent to something compatible with our Android
release to get more compatible websites, despite the standard way would
be to not do browser sniffing. Not only that, but we do spoof our User
Agent to specific websites exactly so we get a more compatible page to
improve
On 28 September 2014 17:38, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote:
Imagine if I home developing my own little Web app on my computer, I
need to get through the hops of deploying TLS.
For testing purposes you can get
, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote:
What is the definition of 'authenticated origins', particularly when
dealing
with localhost,
https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/#authenticated-origin
This has already been a major painpoint as the author
On 16 October 2014 20:55, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-10-16, 1:52 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com
mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the person doing
+1000
I am constantly killing my profile by downgrading it when I need to test
something on Firefox Stable. Switching between Chrome releases couldnt be
easier but even as a Firefox Dev switching between profiles when testing a
different version is a nightmare, I cant imagine how unfriendly it is
I have seen voting being recommended as alternative to +1's which is a
plus, we have never used them to prioritise although not sure our area of
bugs is popular enough to be using votes in that way.
As a developer of a bugzilla client however I have see a major missing
feature being the ability
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1273351 I am working on
removing the pointerlock permissions UI, now instead of a doorhanger
permission that the user needs to respond to before entering pointerlock,
the pointer lock will be granted with a warning given to the user
explaining how to
bably done a lot of
work on this, and for that I apologize.
Not at all, thanks to everyone for their feedback, happy to make sure we
get this right before shipping (or not).
Cheers
Dale
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 20:28, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 2/14/2020 5:05 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> &
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 00:17, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:10 PM Dale Harvey wrote:
>
>> > If you _do_ invent a new one shared with other browser vendors, please
>> > don't use an "x-" prefix in anything new.
>>
>> Thanks, I go
gt;
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:17 PM Henri Sivonen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:04 PM Dale Harvey
> wrote:
> > > Yes, extensions that only define a new search engine will be
> permitted,
> > > the extension will not be able to do anything
Summary: Since Firefox 57, users have been able to install additional
search engines in the shape of a WebExtension[1] from addons.mozilla.org
(AMO), whereas this used to only be possible using the OpenSearch XML
format[2]. Since Firefox 68, all the search engines we distribute are
13 matches
Mail list logo
