On Tue, 06 May 2014 01:29:47 +0200, Kenneth Russell 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 wrote:
I have a list of example use cases at
http://wiki.whatwg.
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:05:35PM -0700, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:10 AM, David Young 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 number
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, João Eiras 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 information that ca
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, João Eiras 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, rightl
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 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:
>
> https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniquene
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 y
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Barth 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
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 r
Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than
introducing a redundant property?
Adam
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Brian Birtles wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gecko's implementation of Event.timeStamp does not conform to the spec[1]
> since it reports the number of milliseconds s
On 5/7/14, 1:51 AM, Brian Birtles wrote:
This time is measured from navigationStart
It's probably better to say that it's measured from the same 0 point as
performance.now(), since there is no navigationStart in workers but
there are events there.
-Boris
On Tuesday 2014-05-06 23:00 -0700, Adam Barth wrote:
> Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than
> introducing a redundant property?
I'd certainly be happy to see such a change; I argued that
Event.timeStamp be based on a monotonic clock previously, in:
http://lists.w3.o
[ resending this message, originally dated "Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014
11:42:10 -0700", since I just noticed it didn't make it through to
the list due to the list's content-type filters rejecting signed
messages ]
On Tuesday 2014-04-29 17:55 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Tab A
14 matches
Mail list logo
