Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

Hi David, thanks for crafting this text. Would it make sense to also mention countermeasures in the paragraph on privacy? (For instance: disallowing use of this API for arbitrary origins or restricting access to specific API methods.) Given the significant privacy implications, I would lean

Re: C++ standards proposal for a embedding library

Hear, hear and well said! On 7/19/18 11:53 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Botond Ballo wrote: >> 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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Performance Working Group

Adding to what Tom said... 1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but *should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes

Re: Coding style: Making the `e` prefix for enum variants not mandatory?

And perhaps good reason for removing it from the style guide? ;-) On 6/25/18 3:08 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > And Kris pointed out that we already had another huge thread on this: > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.platform/WAuySoTfq_w/-DggRotpBQAJ > > > Looks like there

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: JSON-LD Working Group

On 4/29/18 10:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 19:35 L. David Baron wrote: > >> OK, here's a draft of an explicit abtension that I can submit later >> today. Does this seem reasonable? >> > > This looks good to me. Thank you. +1 We might want to also

Re: FYI: Short Nightly Shield Study involving DNS over HTTPs (DoH)

On 3/21/18 9:04 AM, Axel Hecht wrote: > I have a couple of further questions: > > One is about the legal impact on users. DNS mangling is part of law > enforcement strategies in many parts of the world (incl Germany). Would you mind describing this in more detail? What kind of DNS mangling do

Re: FYI: Short Nightly Shield Study involving DNS over HTTPs (DoH)

On 3/19/18 8:59 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/19/18 1:08 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote: >> There's a lot of thinking that went into the agreement we have with >> Cloudflare to enable this experiment in a way that respects user privacy. > > I would like us to be very clear that there are two

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Payments Working Group

On 2/2/18 11:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> What you have seems fine (modulo s/Web Auth/Web Authentcation/). The >> first comment is just housekeeping, whereas the second comment is >>

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Payments Working Group

On 2/2/18 1:25 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2018-01-18 19:05 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 1/8/18 10:17 PM, mcace...@mozilla.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:29 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: >>>&

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Payments Working Group

On 1/8/18 10:17 PM, mcace...@mozilla.com wrote: > > >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should >> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should >> support or oppose it.

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

ol moves from incubation into >standardization, > > although we are open to other paths toward fixing this situation. > > > On Friday 2018-01-05 09:36 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Agreed. Thanks for the careful wording, David! (BTW s/apple/Apple/) >> >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

this space.  We believe that > rechartering the Second Screen WG should wait until that work is > ready to be in a working group, and that advancing the current > specifications (developed under the existing charter) to Proposed > Recommendation probably depends on this new work in order

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

+1 to Martin's feedback. On 1/3/18 10:19 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Without the protocol pieces, this remains vendor-specific. We should > comment on this and make it clear that we think that definition of a > generic protocol for interacting with the second display has not been > given

Re: Announcing the next Extended Support Release of Firefox - ESR60 with policy engine

On 12/21/17 9:09 AM, Mike Kaply wrote: > We currently do not plan to allow arbitrary preferences, but if certain > preferences are important, we can add policies for them. > > We could also add policies that set groups of preferences for specific > purposes. Great idea. I like Luke's suggestion

Re: Intent to remove Ambient Light and Proximity sensor APIs

On 12/18/17 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 18/12/17 18:25, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> Do you know of a specific (URL?) mobile-device-capable (which >> device(s)?) WebRTC-based audio-calling webapp that works today? I >> would be very interested in testing it out. > > appear.in, which supports