Re: Retaining Nightly users after disabling of legacy extensions

On 8/24/17 2:08 AM, Andrew Swan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Alessio Placitelli < > aplacite...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> 2017-08-24 0:00 GMT+02:00 Andrew McKay : >>> The recommendations are being populated and other changes are being >>> made. For example, on

Re: Future of out-of-tree spell checkers?

On 3/22/17 8:10 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Nicolas B. Pierron > wrote: >> On 03/22/2017 09:18 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> >>> Without XPCOM extensions, what's the story for out-of-tree spell checkers? >>> >>> […], which implements

Re: Intent to remove: support for installing multiple xpis simultaneously

On 2/18/17 7:40 AM, bird.freudent...@googlemail.com wrote: > Unfortunately I'm using this approach to bundle my themes with an extension > that extends capability to them. I'm wondering why to remove this feature at > this point of development, since for Firefox 57 upwards XUL based addons will

Re: can't load script in overlayed XUL

On 5/11/16 9:40 AM, oonuma ryouyu wrote: > I just learning XUL. > > I create simple addon,but it can't load script. > > I tryed this problem for whole two days. > > https://github.com/lv/overlay_xul > > please help me. > Please use one of the resources listed here for add-on questions:

Re: Dan Stillman's concerns about Extension Signing

On 11/30/15 1:53 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-11-30 10:29 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: >> Could we perhaps organize a MozLando workshop to discuss add-ons >> security? > > I think you need to reach out to the add-ons team. I was not involved > in any of the design process; I just

Re: Dan Stillman's concerns about Extension Signing

On 11/26/15 11:51 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > For what it's worth, this thread was not meant to point fingers, but > specifically to get an answer from said team. I see concern about > Extension Signing, and I see points made by add-on developers and which > appear valid to me and which

Re: NPAPI plug-in use case: certified medical devices

Add-ons that use those APIs can pass review, yes. They would also need to be signed, unless they're using one of the Firefox versions that can disable signing. Jorge On 8/29/15 10:50 AM, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote: > Will either js-ctypes or child process-calling add-on passes AMO > review? With

Re: ES6 lexical temporal dead zone has landed on central

Kris from the Add-ons Team is already looking into this and will message developers affected by this issue. Jorge On 9/18/14, 1:47 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: Is the AMO compatibility checker powerful enough to detect at least the first category of required changes? If so I don't think we

Re: Non-backward compatible changes to JS 'let' semantics

On 8/15/14, 1:03 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: On 15/08/2014 07:17, Jeff Walden wrote: I think our best bet is probably to evangelize the change hard, update AMO linters to flag the issue, and (gulp) wait for, and assist wherever possible, addon authors to update their code. Part #1, shouldn't

Re: Non-backward compatible changes to JS 'let' semantics

On 8/13/14, 5:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-08-13, 6:02 PM, Shu-yu Guo wrote: About not changing the behavior for chrome JS, the prospect of having chrome JS becoming more divergent from standard JS is unwelcome to me.

Re: How to use jquery in xul files of thunderbird

On 7/16/14, 2:40 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: Hi, Generally, using jQuery in XUL files is not supported. Some of jQuery might work accidentally, but it is designed specifically to work with HTML, not XUL. If you want to write HTML-based add-ons, you should take a look at

Re: Is XPath still a thing?

On 4/14/14, 3:46 PM, David Burns wrote: Not from my side! David On 14/04/2014 22:41, Eric Shepherd wrote: On 2014-04-14 21:38:24 +, David Burns said: XPath is still a going concern from where I stand. Web Testing people, who use Selenium WebDriver, use XPath extensively since they

Re: Add-on File Registration PRD

Cross posting to dev.planning, where I originally intended this to be. Please follow up to dev.planning. Jorge On 10/30/13 3:42 PM, Jorge Villalobos wrote: Hello! As many of you know, the Add-ons Team, User Advocacy Team, Firefox Team and others have been collaborating for over a year

Re: Cost of ICU data

On 10/15/13 2:41 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 10/15/13 12:28 PM, Brian Smith wrote: I have no idea how to install a langpack. Presumably it is something that is done through AMO. I am skeptical that this is easy enough to make it acceptable to push this task off to the user. we should at

Re: Sandboxed, off-screen pages for thumbnail capture

On 6/18/13 8:12 AM, Nicolas Silva wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Gavin Sharp ga...@gavinsharp.com wrote: If we design it properly this shouldn't be a huge issue (and users disabling the feature probably won't be necessary). This isn't something we'd provide UI for, certainly.

Re: [Advance warning] Session Restore is changing, will break add-ons

On 5/21/13 10:01 AM, Lawrence Mandel wrote: cc Jorge Villalobos. - Original Message - As part of project Async, we have been working on refactoring Firefox’ Session Restore to ensure that it does not block the main thread. Part of the work has been cleaning up the code