Re: Intent to implement: cryptomining and fingerprinting resource blocking

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:07 AM Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 9:39 PM Rik Cabanier, wrote: > >> Why are these sites not included in the "safe browsing" service that is >> used by most browsers? >> That way, everyone would be protected. >&g

Re: Intent to implement: cryptomining and fingerprinting resource blocking

Why are these sites not included in the "safe browsing" service that is used by most browsers? That way, everyone would be protected. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:59 PM Steven Englehardt wrote: > Summary: > We are expanding the set of resources blocked by Content Blocking to > include domains found

Re: Run firefox as headless???

If the problem is that you're running on a windowless system, you can use xfvb-run to launch your application On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Devan Shah wrote: > slimerjs is not fully headless unless using xvfb, is there anything else > that can he used. > __

Re: Skia Content on OS X

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 3/22/16 9:03 AM, Mason Chang wrote: > >> It’s also quite nice that micro-level optimizations at the backend level >> can mostly be done for us as Skia is optimizing performance with Chrome as >> one of their use cases. >> > > On which p

Re: Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Yes, I think we should do this. > Happy to hear the positive responses. I implemented a patch for this last year. Since the code is trivial, it probably still applies: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008453

Re: Intent to implement and ship: CSS and SVG filters for canvas 2D

Great news! I'm super excited to see this go in! On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Markus Stange wrote: > Summary: The "filter" property on CanvasRenderingContext2D allows authors > to specify a filter that will get applied during canvas drawing. It accepts > the same values as the CSS "filter"

intent to ship: isolation

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com, mih...@adobe.com *Spec* *http://www.w3.org/TR/compositing-1/#isolation * The spec has been in CR since Feb 20. On Oct 30 the CSS and SVG working groups approved it to advance to PR. *Summary* The 'isolation' pro

Re: Intent to ship: CSS Filters

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:44 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 2014-09-16 21:29 +, Max Vujovic wrote: > > == Interop == > > Safari, Chrome, and Opera currently ship an interoperable implementation > of CSS Filters behind a -webkit prefix. > > Do they have plans to ship without the prefix

Re: C++ standards proposals of potential interest, and upcoming committee meeting

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Rik Cabanier" > > To: "Benoit Jacob" > > Cc: "Botond Ballo" , "dev-platform" < > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org>, "Jet

Re: C++ standards proposals of potential interest, and upcoming committee meeting

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2014-06-09 16:27 GMT-04:00 Jet Villegas : > > > It seems healthy for the core C++ language to explore new territory here. > > Modern primitives for things like pixels and colors would be a good > thing, > > I think. Let the compiler vendors co

Re: C++ standards proposals of potential interest, and upcoming committee meeting

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2014-06-09 16:12 GMT-04:00 Benoit Jacob : > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-09 15:56 GMT-04:00 Botond Ballo : > > > > - Original Message - > >> > From: "Benoit Jacob" > >> > To: "Botond Ballo" > >> > Cc: "dev-platform" > >> > Sent: Monday,

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2014-06-08 8:56 GMT-04:00 : > > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 12:11:29 AM UTC+2, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > My ROI for arguing on standards mailing on matrix math topics lists has > > > been very low, presumably because these are specialist topics

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-07 12:49 GMT-04:00 L. David Baron : > > On Monday 2014-06-02 20:45 -0700, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> > - change isIdentity() so it's a flag. >> >> I'm a little worried about this o

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > The issue is not that "isIdentity()" is confusing. The problem is that > you > > shouldn't make decisions based on it. From earlier i

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Neil wrote: > Rik Cabanier wrote: > > 1. isIdentity() >> We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a >> non identity state. >> >> Are you doing something similar for the 2d/3d case? Yes, once a matri

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Kip Gilbert wrote: > > On 2014-06-06, 1:23 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Kip Gilbert > <mailto:kgilb...@mozilla.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >>

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Kip Gilbert wrote: > Hello, > > From a game programmer's perspective, isIdentity would normally be used to > cull out work. In these cases, it is expected that isIdentity will return > true only when the matrix is exactly equal to the identity matrix. Due to > t

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > On Jun 5, 2014, at 18:34 , Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > ... > > > > Then t

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: &

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > What about > > > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,1,0,0) or > > DOMMatrix(1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1) > > > > Do we

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> There are 2 things that I have questions about: >> 1. isIdentity() >> We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong > about this) > > There are 2 things that I have questions about: > >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

It seems like we're getting to agreement. (Please tell me if I'm wrong about this) There are 2 things that I have questions about: 1. isIdentity() We settled that this should mean that the matrix was never changed to a non identity state. This means that the following code: var m = new DOMMatrix()

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rik Cabanier > wrot

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-05 9:08 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-05 2:48 G

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-05 2:48 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic >> wrote: >> >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” on

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the design > principles? > > I was hoping this would be the time matrix rotate() method goes to > radians, like the canvas rotate, and unlike SVGMatrix version that takes > degree

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-04 20:28 GMT-04:00 Cameron McCormack : > > On 05/06/14 07:20, Milan Sreckovic wrote: >> >>> In general, is “this is how it worked with SVGMatrix” one of the >>> design principles? >>> >>> I was hoping this would be the time matri

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Till Schneidereit wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> > Actually, inverse() is already spec'd to throw if the inversion fails. >> In >> > that case (assuming we keep it that way) there is no ne

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> That would require try/catch around all the "invert()" calls. This is ugly >> but more importantly, it will significantly slow down javascript &g

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-03 17:34 GMT-04:00 Benoit Jacob : > > >> >> >> 2014-06-03 16:20 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-03 16:20 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-03

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-03 3:34 GMT-04:00 Dirk Schulze : > > >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >> > Objection #6: >> > >> > The determinant() method, being in this API the only easy way to get >> > something that looks roughly l

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

world. We could remove invert() or make the name less confusing. > 2014-06-03 13:23 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-03 3:34 GMT-04:

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-03 3:34 GMT-04:00 Dirk Schulze : > > >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >> > Objection #6: >> > >> > The determinant() method, being in this API the only easy way to get >> > something that looks roughly l

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-02 23:45 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > To recap I think the following points have been resolved: >> - remove determinant (unless someone comes up with a strong use case) >> - change is2D() so it

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Yes, isIdentity is used as an indication that nothing needs to be done or >> that the transform hasn't changed. >> Maybe we should rename it

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

To recap I think the following points have been resolved: - remove determinant (unless someone comes up with a strong use case) - change is2D() so it's a flag instead of calculated on the fly - change isIdentity() so it's a flag. - update constructors so they set/copy the flags appropriately Still

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Off the top of my head, the places in Gecko I know of that use isIdentity > or is2D fall into two categories: > 1) math performance optimizations > 2) (is2D only) we're going to take an implementation approach that only > works for 2D aff

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-02 17:13 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-02 1

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-02 14:06 GMT-04:00 Benoit Jacob : > > >> >> >> 2014-06-02 13:56 GMT-04:00 Nick Alexander : >> >> On 2014-06-02, 9:59 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >>> >>&

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > On 2014-06-02, 9:59 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Nick Alexander > <mailto:nalexan...@mozilla.com>> wrote: >> >> On 2014-06-02, 4:59 AM, Robe

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > On 2014-06-02, 4:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >> isIdentity() indeed suffers from rounding errors but since it's useful, >>>

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On 2014-06-02, at 08:53, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > it conveys that this is a 2d matrix and that you can ignore the 3d > components. > > Maybe you misunderstood what I was implying. You are describing an >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 2014-05-30, at 21:00, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > 2x3 matrices > > representing affine 2D transformations; this mode switch corresponds to > the > > is2D() getter > > Am I the only one that finds this method entirely unintuitive? After >

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> isIdentity() indeed suffers from rounding errors but since it's useful, >> I'm >> hesitant to remove it. >> In our rendering librar

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-06-01 23:19 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-31 0:40 GMT

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-05-31 0:40 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > Objection #3: >>> >>> I dislike the way that this API exposes multiplication order. It's not >>> obvious enough which of A.multiply(B) a

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > We already went over this at length about a year ago. > > It does seem useful to note some of the lessons you learned in the > specification. E.g. that

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

ss, with minimal getters (basically a thin wrapper > around a typed array without any nontrivial arithmetic built in). > We already went over this at length about a year ago. Dirk's been asking for feedback on this interface on www-style and public-fx so can you raise your conce

Re: Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

Since DOMMatrix is replacing SVGMatrix, I don't see a way to implement it behind a flag. Should I wait to make that change and leave both SVGMatrix and DOMMatrix in the code for now? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > I'm all for it! :-) > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei

Intent to implement: DOMMatrix

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com, dschu...@adobe.com *Proposal* *http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/#DOMMatrix * *Summary* Expose new global objects named 'DOMMatrix' and 'DOMMatrixReadOnly' that offer a matrix abstraction. *Motivation* The DOMMatrix

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 05/20/2014 04:06 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > > On 05/20/2014 03:50 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> I agree that there's a risk since this will make it super easy to get to > >> the core count. > >

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2014-05-19 23:37 GMT-04:00 Rik Cabanier : > > >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Benoit Jacob >> wrote: >> >>> +1000! Thanks for articulating so clearly the difference

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Eli Grey wrote: > >> Gavin: The fingerprinting entropy exposed by Rik's patch is actual >> *magnitudes* less than the entropy exposed on >> http://renderingpipeline.com/webgl-extension-viewer/ >> > I didn't

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 05/20/2014 03:13 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Gavin Sharp > wrote: > >> Arguing that the incremental fingerprinting risk > >> is negligible is reasonable, but you lose cred

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 5/20/2014 1:02 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> That is unlikely. The OS scheduler (I assume that will still exist), will >> take care of that problem. At the end, more work will be done which is all >> we're

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

ng issue does not exist? It's there with or without the attribute. > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> >

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > >> > I don'

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 06:35:49PM -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > >> > I don't se

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 5/19/2014 6:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Other platforms offer an API to the number of CPU's and they are able to >> use it successfully. (see the ten of thousands of examples on GitHub) I >> don&

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

standard. 1: http://renderingpipeline.com/webgl-extension-viewer/ 2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JanMar/0136.html > 2014-05-19 21:35 GMT-04:00 Jonas Sicking : > >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier >> wrote: >> > I don't see why the web p

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > I don't see why the web platform is special here and we should trust that > > authors can do the right thing. > > I'm fairly sure people have already p

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > Primary eng emails > > caban...@adobe.com, bugm...@eligrey.com > > > > *Proposal* > > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/NavigatorCores > > > >

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

6=&f7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=&f12= 3: http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/products5hexa.html 4: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008453 > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> FYI this a

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

FYI this attribute landed in WebKit today: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/169017 On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >>&

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:03 AM, wrote: > Do you think it would be feasible that the browser fires events every time > the number of cores available for a job changes? That might allow to build > an efficient event-based worker pool. > I think this will be very noisy and might cause a lot of co

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-13, 9:01 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> ... >> >> The problem is that the API doesn't really make it obvious that >> you're not supposed to take the value that the getter returns an

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >> ... >> >> >> That is not the point of this attribute. It's just a hint for the author >> so he can tune his application accordingly. >> Maybe the application is tuned to use fewer cores, or maybe more. It all >> depends... >> > > The probl

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/13/14, 2:42 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Why would that be? Are you burning more CPU resources in servo to do the >> same thing? >> > > In some cases, possibly yes. > > > If so, that sounds li

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-13, 9:25 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Web applications can already do this today. There's nothing >> stopping them >> from figuring out the CPU's and trying to use them a

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

x exposes this. Was there a discussion thread? It seems that property would face the same (or even stronger) objections than navigator.hardwareConcurrency > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari > >wrote: >>

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 > >wrote: >> >> > On 5/12/2014 7:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> > >> >> *Con

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 5/12/2014 7:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> *Concerns* >> >> The original proposal required that a platform must return the exact >> number >> of logical CPU cores. To mitigate the fingerprinting

Re: Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 5/12/2014 7:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> *Concerns* >> >> The original proposal required that a platform must return the exact >> number >> of logical CPU cores. To mitigate the fingerprinting

Intent to implement and ship: navigator.hardwareConcurrency

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com, bugm...@eligrey.com *Proposal* http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/NavigatorCores *Summary* Expose a property on navigator called hardwareConcurrency that returns the number of logical cores on a machine. *Motivation* All native platforms expose this property, It's

Re: Time to revive the "require SSE2" discussion

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > Totally agree that 1% is probably still too much to drop, but the 4x drop > over the past two years makes me hopeful that we'll be able to drop > non-SSE2, eventually. > > SSE2 is not just about SIMD. The most important thing it buys us IMHO i

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > > Just so we're clear, I really don't care what the name is, nor do I > > > have any objection to people having private conversation

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> > We could probably come up with a slightly better name, but only very >> > slightly better, so at this point I would rather not re

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-01, 2:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari > <mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Rik, >> >>

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-01, 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >>> >>> No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the >>> method changed. R

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

//www.w3.org/2013/09/accessible_canvas_clock.html 2: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/2dcontext/drawing-paths-to-the-canvas > > On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Primary eng emails >> caban...@adobe.com >> >> *Spec* >> htt

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

rovide accessibility on canvas: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966591 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=979692 > > On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Primary eng emails >> caban...@adobe.com >> >> *Spec* >> http://www.

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > [...] > > Pointer to the bug? > This is the launch bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=935992 And this is the bug to flip the pref (I a

intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com *Spec* http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#dom-context-2d-drawfocusifneeded *Summary* The drawFocusIfNeeded API is a method on the canvas context that allows a user to draw a focus ring when a fallback element is focused. See http://ww

intent to ship: mix-blend-mode

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com, mih...@adobe.com *Spec* http://www.w3.org/TR/compositing-1/#mix-blend-mode The spec has been in CR since Feb 20 *Summary* The mix-blend-mode property allows you to specify how an element 'blends' with elements in the same stacking context. This property land

Re: Intent to ship: Path2D + addition canvas APIs

I'm not too familiar with the "intent to ship" process for mozilla [1] Given that no one objected to my proposal, can I submit a patch to remove the runtime flag and put it up for review? 1: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ExposureGuidelines On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Rik

Re: Intent to ship: Path2D + addition canvas APIs

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > The one shipping implementation was Safari and it was implemented last > year > > by Dirk. He renamed it last week to Path2D. > > I see, if it has been i

Re: Intent to ship: Path2D + addition canvas APIs

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > Hi Anne, > On Mar 25, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Rik Cabanier > wrote: > >> It's defined as the "Path" object in the WhatWG spec [1] but

Intent to ship: Path2D + addition canvas APIs

Path2D is a new object in the global namespace. Its main use case is to cache path segments. For instance, shumway could use it to cache the flash edgelists which should increase its drawing performance. Eventually it will act as a bridge between SVG and Canvas but for now its use is limited to ca

Re: Intent to ship: DOMRect, DOMPoint, DOMQuad, and GeometryUtils

consensus > AFAIK. If there are unresolved issues, they would be for edge cases > unlikely to be hit by Web authors. > > I am unaware of other engine plans to implement these APIs, but I am also > unaware of any objections. Tab Atkins (Google), Simon Pieters (Opera) and > Rik Ca

Re: Intent to implement (and ship?): canvas context "alpha" attribute

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Ms2ger wrote: > On 03/12/2014 08:40 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> *Link to standard:* >> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/CanvasOpaque >> > > That's not a standard... > True. I will send a proposal. __

Intent to implement (and ship?): canvas context "alpha" attribute

*Summary:* The proposed API is to allow developers to request an opaque backing store for 2D Canvas. This mirrors existing functionality in WebGL. This improves compositing performance because it eliminates reading the alpha channel from the destination during canvas drawing and when the canvas is

Re: Including Adobe CMaps

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: > > My assumption is that certain users only need certain CMaps because they > tend to read only documents in certain languages. This seems like something > we can really optimize and avoid ahead-of-time download cost for. > So, you'd only inst

Re: Including Adobe CMaps

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Andreas Gal wrote: > Is this something we could load dynamically and offline cache? > That should be possible. The CMap name is in the PDF so Firefox could download it on demand. Also, if the user has acrobat, the CMaps are already on their machine. > On Feb 24,

Re: Intent to ship background-blend-mode

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:28 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2014-02-06 22:02 +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > > We would like to ship mix-blend-mode too. In our experiments, Firefox > has >

Re: Intent to ship background-blend-mode

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:08 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2014-02-05 20:37 -0800, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > Spec > > http://www.w3.org/TR/compositing-1/#background-blend-mode > > > > > > *Summary* > > > > This new CSS property allows you to

Intent to ship background-blend-mode

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com, ol...@adobe.com, scrac...@adobe.com Spec http://www.w3.org/TR/compositing-1/#background-blend-mode *Summary* This new CSS property allows you to specify blending between background images and the background color. The specification just transitioned to C