Re: Intent to ship: BigInt
Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 20:57:02 UTC+1 schrieb David Baron: > Have either of them announced plans to ship (or actually shipped) > this feature? https://www.chromestatus.com/features/5371603852460032 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Remove browser and OS architecture from Firefox's User-Agent string?
Am Freitag, 10. Mai 2019 22:37:51 UTC+2 schrieb Chris Peterson: > Hello, UA string fans! I propose that Firefox's UA string on Windows and > Linux omit the browser and OS architectures to reduce UA fingerprinting > entropy (and save a few header bytes). ... > < "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" returns "Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64" or similar. This needs to change then. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
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 10.0; rv:66.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/66.0" > > > Note that "navigator.oscpu" returns "Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64" or > > > similar. This needs to change then. > > > > > > > Yes. navigator.oscpu and the UA string share some common code, so they would > > both be fixed to match 32-bit Windows. > > I think it might be worth considering letting them diverge. Having more js information in "navigator.oscpu" than in "navigator.userAgent" could animate web developers using oscpu while in an ideal world it should be dropped completely. It's Mozilla only and endet up in the HTML spec (Gecko navigator compatibility mode) only for web compat concerns (browser detection). (BTW, chancing oscpu string requires a spec change too) ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Documentation for IPDL needs some edit
Am Samstag, 10. August 2019 16:10:58 UTC+2 schrieb sasch...@gmail.com: > I have started to learn about IPDL and am reading IPDL Tutorial > (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/IPDL/Tutorial). It looks > like the document is old and needs some edits, but this is an area I'm still > learning so I want to make sure: > > 1. Nearly all of the examples lack explicit modifier before message names. > AFAIK messages are required to have `async` or `sync` before them since Bug > 1240871, am I right? > > 2. The document says `rpc` shouldn't be used for general purpose but still > the example in "Subprotocols and Protocol Management" section uses it for no > explicit reason. I think it should use async instead as suggested, what do > you think? > > 3. `rpc` is mainly for NPAPI per the document, but NPAPI is dead. Why do we > still need it? > > Not sure this is the right place to discuss about documentations, if I posted > to a wrong one please inform me. I can't answer any of your questions, but may be this is helpful in case the docs are out of date: https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/MDN/Feedback where you can find this link to report a problem: https://github.com/mdn/sprints/issues/new?template=issue-template.md&projects=mdn/sprints/2&labels=user-report ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Land your tests for now-public security bugs
Am Dienstag, 10. März 2020 16:05:07 UTC+1 schrieb Tom Ritter: > [land-tests: 2020/04/05] 2020-05-04 ISO 8601 Date please! ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
