On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Mike Hoye wrote:
> This page: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Introduction
>
> ... has some good information about getting your development environment
> set up so you can contribute to Firefox.
>
And so does this:
http://codefirefox.com/
___
On 2014-09-25 10:23 AM, Mike Habicher wrote:
Hello!
Mozilla has many projects on the go. This site
http://whatcanidoformozilla.org/ might help you find something you're
interested in.
In addition, if you're interested in working on the Firefox codebase,
please take a look Bugs Ahoy:
http
On 09/25/2014 09:10 AM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> Would it be wise to allow for "image-rendering: pixelated"
> that applies to any scale operation, and give us an option
> to add other operations (eg. "image-rendering: smooth" or
> "image-rendering: bilinear") later?
Down the line, we can definitely a
On 09/25/2014 08:24 AM, James Graham wrote:
> So, are we sure that this is what the spec *should* say? can we imagine
> a scenario in which authors either use hacks to specify different
> properties for different browsers
Bad news: we are already in that world. Right now, if authors want
pixelated
On 2014-09-25, 12:43 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
On 09/25/2014 09:16 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
No, sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean pixel for pixel identical
results. My question was: are we going to have the same behavior for
pixelated in the downscaling case, since now the spec allows tw
On 25/09/14 05:23, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> It depends on what you mean by "interoperable". If you're asking if
> they'll produce the exact same result, pixel-for-pixel, when downscaling
> an image, then no. But that's likely already the case, with the default
> scaling behavior; I'd be surprised
On 09/25/2014 09:16 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> No, sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean pixel for pixel identical
> results. My question was: are we going to have the same behavior for
> pixelated in the downscaling case, since now the spec allows two
> different behaviors for that case.
Gotc
On 2014-09-25, 12:23 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
Is what
they're going to ship in Chrome 38 going to be interoperable with our
implementation?
It depends on what you mean by "interoperable". If you're asking if
they'll produce the exact same result, pixel-for-pixel, when downscaling
an image, th
Would it be wise to allow for "image-rendering: pixelated" that applies to any
scale operation, and give us an option to add other operations (eg.
"image-rendering: smooth" or "image-rendering: bilinear") later?
--Jet
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Holbert"
To: "Ehsan Akhgari" , "L
Sounds reasonable.
Rob
--
oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
owohooo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro
Hello!
Mozilla has many projects on the go. This site http://whatcanidoformozilla.org/
might help you find something you're interested in.
Regards,
--Mike.
On 14-09-25 09:14 AM, shekharrajak.1...@gmail.com wrote:
W
Hi,
I would like to implement the functions as part of the
‘clip-path’ property including the reference boxes. Basic shapes functions are:
circle(), ellipse(), inset() and polygon().
Examples:
clip-path: circle(100px at center); /* draws a circle in the middle of a box */
clip-path: ellipse(c
What is the easiest way to contribute in mozilla ,who know c,c++,HTML5,CSS,and
JS ?
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
13 matches
Mail list logo
