Darin and I discussed this proposal, and we had a few thoughts to share:
(1) It seems a little odd that we'll end up with two different objects that
have similar names and a very similar purpose, but just differ in how they are
implemented. Maybe there's a way to define layoutTestController in
Hi Ojan, thank you for the response!
Let me summarize to make sure I understand the proposal: Expose a new object
> to layout tests that is entirely in WebCore instead of in the DRT layer.
> Then, only put things in layoutTestController that need to be at the WebKit
> layer, e.g. notifyDone, waitU
Let me summarize to make sure I understand the proposal: Expose a new object
to layout tests that is entirely in WebCore instead of in the DRT layer.
Then, only put things in layoutTestController that need to be at the WebKit
layer, e.g. notifyDone, waitUntilDone, etc. APIs that only need to touch
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Apple's legal department would strongly prefer for WebKit's license terms to
> remain simple. We prefer everything to be licensed under LGPL or BSD terms,
> or at the very least a license which is clearly compatible with LGPL and BSD.
Le 19 juil. 2010 à 21:56, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
> Good point. However, at least some versions of DumpRenderTree build with test
> fonts embedded directly into the binary.
>>
>
> I'm not suggesting WebFonts. Rather, the fonts could be downloaded on demand
> when running the tests if not
On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Sausset François wrote:
>
> Le 19 juil. 2010 à 21:04, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
>
>>
>> Apple's legal department would strongly prefer for WebKit's license terms to
>> remain simple. We prefer everything to be licensed under LGPL or BSD terms,
>> or at the ver
Le 19 juil. 2010 à 21:04, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
>
> Apple's legal department would strongly prefer for WebKit's license terms to
> remain simple. We prefer everything to be licensed under LGPL or BSD terms,
> or at the very least a license which is clearly compatible with LGPL and BSD.
Apple's legal department would strongly prefer for WebKit's license terms to
remain simple. We prefer everything to be licensed under LGPL or BSD terms, or
at the very least a license which is clearly compatible with LGPL and BSD. Is
this license LGPL-compatible for cases where the fonts are em
So, it sounds reasonable to use that license for fonts needed in the WebKit
project.
If nobody has objections, an update of the WebKit licensing policy and a review
of the patch [1] including fonts under that license (for MathML) would be great!
François Sausset
[1] https://bugs.webkit.org/sho
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Nikolas Zimmermann
wrote:
> Am 18.07.2010 um 18:36 schrieb Adam Barth:
>> I'm not sure it's working properly. It says:
>>
>> SUCCESS: Build 17401 (r63531) was the first to show failures:
>> set([u'svg/filters/filter-empty-g.svg'])
>>
>> but then it goes on to list
10 matches
Mail list logo
