On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:29:47 +0200, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
Applications need this API in order to determine how many Web Workers
to instantiate in order to parallelize their work.
On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:31:15 +0200, Eli Grey m...@eligrey.com wrote:
I have a list of example
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:05:35PM -0700, Rik Cabanier wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:10 AM, David Young dyo...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:49:00AM -0700, Adam Barth wrote:
Over on blink-dev, we've been discussing [1] adding a property to
navigator
that reports the
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
...
I guess everyone that is reading this thread understands the use cases well
and agrees with them.
The disagreement is what kind of API you need. Many people, rightly so, have
stated that a core count gives little
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Joe Gregorio jcgrego...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
...
I guess everyone that is reading this thread understands the use cases
well
and agrees with them.
The disagreement is what kind of API you
On 5/6/14, 5:30 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
Leaving the question of fingerprinting aside for now, what name would
people prefer?
mauve?
Failing that, maxUsefulWorkers?
-Boris
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
You're right that Panopticlick doesn't bother to spend the few seconds it
takes to estimate the number of cores because it already has sufficient
information to fingerprint 99.1% of visitors:
Dunno if you still wanted answers to these questions, but in order to not
leave you hanging here are my best attempts:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Evan Stade wrote:
dependent-locality and locality have a fairly precise meaning in the
UK. Also in a natural-language conversation, if you ask me
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
You're right that Panopticlick doesn't bother to spend the few seconds it
takes to estimate the number of cores because it already has sufficient
Hi, I'm back with more questions on the URL spec after poking at it a
bit more for various purposes.
One thing I've noticed is that the specification currently aggressively
fails IPv6 address matching, so, e.g., new URL(http://[::1::];) would
fail. (Although it allows http://[1:2:3:4:5:6::8]/
Hi,
Gecko's implementation of Event.timeStamp does not conform to the
spec[1] since it reports the number of milliseconds since system start
rather than 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970. This is tracked as Mozilla
bug 77992 [2]. DOM Level 2 allowed this[3] but the spec has since changed.
One
10 matches
Mail list logo
