Hi,
I have configured Webkit GTK port on Win32. Apart from that I have created
some NPAPI architecture based plug-in to implement my own functionality. I
have created DLL's and keeping them on the standard MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH path.
But my GTKLauncher application is unable to load these plug-ins. What
There are two patches in the works for regions and exclusions that include
tests:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61726
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61730
The patches started with tests in these paths:
LayoutTests/fast/regions
LayoutTests/fast/exclusions
But during the respon
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> There appear to be 6 remaining blocking issues:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=34984&hide_resolved=1
>
> We would like to hear from others who have tried new-run-webkit-tests,
> if they have issues which they believe should
Looking at the master bug, it looks like we're close to switching the
project to new-run-webkit-tests:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34984
There appear to be 6 remaining blocking issues:
https://bugs.webkit.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=34984&hide_resolved=1
We would like to hear from o
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> 27.06.2011, в 14:03, Darin Fisher написал(а):
> > I think we can make this behavior a Setting, and then certainly each
> embedder of WebKit
> > can decide how prominently to surface this option. For Chrome, we'll
> probably either mak
27.06.2011, в 14:03, Darin Fisher написал(а):
> I'm pretty surprised that you are so concerned about this change.
I dislike magic APIs that work sometimes, but not always. In this case, the
reason for crippling the API seems to be almost entirely about implementation
issues - the discussion
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Adam Roben wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>
>> This should go into a bug.
>
> Agreed.
Opened https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63484.
Thanks,
-Brent
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-d
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> 26.06.2011, в 19:37, Sreeram Ramachandran написал(а):
>
> >> I'm not sure if historically browsers were often taking the liberty of
> crippling widely used features in this way. We didn't kill marquee, for
> instance. For another exa
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> 26.06.2011, в 19:37, Sreeram Ramachandran написал(а):
>
>>> I'm not sure if historically browsers were often taking the liberty of
>>> crippling widely used features in this way. We didn't kill marquee, for
>>> instance. For another
26.06.2011, в 19:37, Sreeram Ramachandran написал(а):
>> I'm not sure if historically browsers were often taking the liberty of
>> crippling widely used features in this way. We didn't kill marquee, for
>> instance. For another example, I know that a lot of users dislike animated
>> GIFs, and
Can you give an example of a smooth UI that you'd need the more complex API
for? When I think of the existing mail and chat apps in iOS/Android that
I've use, could give just as smooth a UI as the
existing apps, it's just on the browser side to make the UI good instead of
on the web developer side
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 00:11, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Sreeram Ramachandran
> wrote:
>>
>> I think the performance benefit and reduction in code complexity are
>> secondary. Reducing user annoyance is the number one priority.
>
> But websites can annoy users by man
On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> This should go into a bug.
Agreed.
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
>> While investigating a separate issue, I noticed that I was hitting an
>> assertion in the Cairo drawing layer because it was attempting to use an
>> i
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> Is there a document that lists the use-cases for this API? I couldn't find
> anything from a quick glance through the DAP working group's mailing list
> archive. A list of use-cases would help evaluate whether this is the best
> API. At first g
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Sreeram Ramachandran wrote:
>
> I think the performance benefit and reduction in code complexity are
> secondary. Reducing user annoyance is the number one priority.
>
But websites can annoy users by many other means. It seems like all we need
is a "do not show
15 matches
Mail list logo
