Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

Am Dienstag, 14. Mai 2019 18:26:49 UTC+2 schrieb L. David Baron: > On Monday 2019-05-13 16:14 -0700, Chris Peterson wrote: > > On 5/11/2019 4:11 AM, j.j. wrote: > > > > < "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 > > > > Firefox/66.0" > > > > > "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM L. David Baron wrote: > So I think there's may be value in removing these distinctions from > the User-Agent header we send over HTTP even if they're still > accessible from Javascript (and useful there for sites offering > downloads). While I would prefer to

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

On 5/14/19 11:32 AM, Brian Grinstead wrote: 3. For files where there are no (important) XUL elements in the markup, rename .xul->.html. Brian, Could you expand on why this is preferable (when possible) to renaming them to .xhtml? Are there benefits to .html over .xhtml for our

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On 5/14/19 12:53 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM L. David Baron wrote: So I think there's may be value in removing these distinctions from the User-Agent header we send over HTTP even if they're still accessible from Javascript (and useful there for sites offering

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:23 PM Mike Taylor wrote: > > On 5/14/19 12:53 PM, Tom Ritter wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM L. David Baron wrote: > >> So I think there's may be value in removing these distinctions from > >> the User-Agent header we send over HTTP even if they're still > >>

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On 5/14/2019 9:53 AM, Tom Ritter wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:26 PM L. David Baron wrote: So I think there's may be value in removing these distinctions from the User-Agent header we send over HTTP even if they're still accessible from Javascript (and useful there for sites offering

XPIDL interfaces with [notxpcom] methods or attributes must declare [builtinclass]

I just landed bug 1550770 which makes it an error to have an XPIDL interface with a [notxpcom] method or attribute that is not [builtinclass]. Previously, we would just silently make it builtinclass. The new approach makes it easier to see if an interface is really builtinclass or not, but if you

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

Which test files are we talking about here? If they are testing UI widgets, and our long-term goal is to use html and not xhtml for the UI then those tests should, at some point, be in html. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 1:48 PM Brian Grinstead wrote: > There isn't any particular reason functionally

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

There isn't any particular reason functionally to go to one vs the other but I think we still generally prefer to get to plain .html if possible. The reasoning is that it's more common and understood by engineers and tooling. It also doesn't have XML-specific additions like CDATA in script

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On 5/11/2019 8:59 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0" Would there be significant downsides to hard-coding the Windows version to "10.0" in order to put Windows 7 and 8.x users in the same anonymity set with Windows 10 users? ... >

Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

To prepare for browser.xhtml (bug 1533881 ), we’ve been smoothing over differences between XUL documents and chrome HTML documents (bug 1453783 ). We are now working out a plan for

Re: Outline of a plan to remove all XUL documents from mozilla-central

It looks like the post lost formatting on the way - most importantly the numbers next to each step and nesting in the list. I made a formatted version of this post at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rEPcu7ei-kK5Dvt7sBgqa_vP37QFIUtVd33JkCK1mvM/edit . Here's a (hopefully) fixed version of the

Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?

On Monday 2019-05-13 16:14 -0700, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 5/11/2019 4:11 AM, j.j. wrote: > > > < "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 > > > Firefox/66.0" > > > > "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0" > > Note that "navigator.oscpu"