Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

Aryeh Gregor wrote: I remember one particular bug in Firefox (which was only fixed years later) that I spent considerable effort trying to figure out how to work around without a UA string check, and eventually gave up. It was something like: if you append #foo to the URL while the page is l

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-01-27 9:24 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >> I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely >> iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: >> >> uint32_t count = array.Length(); for (uint32_t i = length -

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

btw, Le 28 janv. 2015 à 07:16, Karl Dubost a écrit : > We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very large spectrum. Technical, > Commercial, Laziness, Economic constraints, etc. During the survey last year, > we got answers from business people, Web developers, companies providing UA > d

Re: Visibility plan for document.registerElement (custom elements)

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 12:04:25 PM UTC-8, James Burke wrote: > Is there a place where I can follow the plan for enabling > document.registerElement for wider web usage? Right now is is only > available behind an about:config setting or if an app is a certified app. > > I am just interes

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-01-27 9:24 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >> I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely >> iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: >> >> uint32_t count = array.Length(); for (uint32_t i = length -

Visibility plan for document.registerElement (custom elements)

Is there a place where I can follow the plan for enabling document.registerElement for wider web usage? Right now is is only available behind an about:config setting or if an app is a certified app. I am just interested in the machinery for document.registerElement/custom elements to be available,

Re: HEADS-UP: Disabling Gecko Media Plugins on older Linux kernels (bug 1120045)

One clarification. Sites that use WebRTC but only do H264 do exist - http://web.projectsquared.com/ is one of them. When you try to initiate a video call using Chrome it has a popup that says "Firefox Rocks for Video Calls!" and gives a "Download Firefox" button. It has mostly non-browser endpo

HEADS-UP: Disabling Gecko Media Plugins on older Linux kernels (bug 1120045)

Short version: On desktop Linux systems too old to support seccomp-bpf system call filtering[1], Gecko Media Plugins will be disabled; in practice, this means OpenH264, which is used for H.264 video compression in WebRTC. This will be controlled with a pref, "media.gmp.insecure.allow". [1] Exampl

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

On 2015-01-27 9:24 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: uint32_t count = array.Length(); for (uint32_t i = length - 1; i < length; i--) iterate from length() to 1 and index using i -

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

On 28/01/2015 15:25, Gervase Markham wrote: On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote: btw, here is the "spartan" User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0 Really

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote: > btw, here is the "spartan" User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan > browser: > > Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like > Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0 Really? http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2013/0

Re: JavaScript code coverage

On 27/01/2015 18:29, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I thought someone did experiments with the Debugger API and concluded that > using it to capture code coverage was too slow to be practical: we need > something built into the engine that is fast. > > Also, part of the Engineering Operations Strategic Pl

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:40AM +0800, Philip Chee wrote: > On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > > > >> I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2 > >> since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breaka

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I > could see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch > support, and OS. Long ago I used to do development for MediaWiki. We had UA string checks

Re: HTTP/2 and User-Agent strings?

Le 27/01/2015 22:31, Chris Peterson a écrit : On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then create better alternatives for them. Essentially many websites need to

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

Yes, that’s a good idea! I like this even better than the original proposal. - Seth > On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Cameron McCormack > wrote: > >> Xidorn Quan: >>> I asked a question in #developers that what is the

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Xidorn Quan: > > I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely > > iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: > > For cases where we don’t need to know the index of the array, can we > support somethin

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

Xidorn Quan: > I asked a question in #developers that what is the best way to reversely > iterating nsTArray, and there are some suggestions: For cases where we don’t need to know the index of the array, can we support something like: for (e : array.ReverseIterator()) { ... } or: for (e : R

Re: Reversely iterating nsTArray

Fiddlesticks! I’d have immediate use for both of those things, that’s why I suggested them. Also, the first suggestion is probably actually less typing than not doing it that way. You’re basically writing ‘template ’ at the front, where you lose some characters, but then you make it up every ti