Hello all!
I must say I am quite surprised that there is apparently no plan to
support PWAs?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593#c8
That seems like a very short-sighted decision at this point. I just
recently saw this article about some drawing APP abandoning Electron
in favor of
As the author of one of these extensions for adding a custom search
engine
(https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-custom-search-engine/)
I am of course disappointed, but not actually surprised. This is
basically round two from about a year ago. I would like to point out
that it would
I would also like to mirror the previous comments: Why do we need to
expose this new non-standard feature to the web? Can't we just
transform OpenSearch XML internally to the new WebExtension format?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:17 PM Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:04 PM Dale Ha
In bug 1565170 I plan to disable the toSource methods that exists for
most objects in Firefox as well as the uneval method on the global
object. This change will affect all websites and WebExtension. Both
methods will still be available to Firefox internal (chrome) code, but
I plan on removing thos
We decided to try unshipping Array generics for real.
The numbers haven't improved, but I also haven't heard of any fallout
on Nightly. I am going to assume that those uses are actually already
polyfilled for another browsers.
-Tom
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:30 PM Tom Schuster wro
Very cool, I have been looking forward to this. I hope we can enable
this for links by default at some point, like Chrome.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 AM Charlie Marlow wrote:
>
> Summary: text-decoration-skip-ink is a CSS feature that makes underlines and
> overlines skip around the text, inst
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:21 AM Boris Zbarsky wrote:>
> On 7/22/19 6:22 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> > This was also discussed at https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3255.
> > It seems like Chrome does NOT plan on shipping this at the moment.
>
> Does "at the moment&qu
In Firefox 70 we plan to start blocking Worker and SharedWorker
scripts served with non-JavaScript MIME types. We have similarly been
blocking importScripts() since version 67.
Bug to turn on by default: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523706
Pref: security.block_Worker_with_wrong_mi
We plan to unship the non-standard Array generic methods. These are
copies of the methods from Array.prototype, for example Array.slice,
Array.forEach etc. No other browser supported those.
For testing I will first disable those methods only on Nightly.
Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.
I am always happy to see more xul going away.
Please implement a filter to only show modified preferences. Sorting
by modified is probably my most common operation after search on the
old page.
Thanks
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:40 AM Axel Hecht wrote:
>
> Is there a tracking bug for follow-ups?
Since landing bug 1465911 [1], CPOWs [2] are only functional on our testing
infrastructure. In normal builds that we ship to users CPOWs can be
created, but no operations like property lookup can be performed on them.
CPOWs continue to exist, because a lot of tests still depend on them. We
can't d
something we
> would discover late, and we would want to be able to push a pref to fix
> that.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>>
>> Summary: All FTP subresources in HTTPs pages (this also includes blob:
>> etc) will be blocked. Opening
Summary: All FTP subresources in HTTPs pages (this also includes blob:
etc) will be blocked. Opening FTP links as toplevel documents is still
possible.
Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404744
Platform coverage: All
Target release: Firefox 61 (this already landed, but we forgot t
If you flip just security.insecure_connection_text.enabled and not
security.insecure_connection_icon.enabled you get Chrome's behavior.
Flipping both gives you the broken lock and the "Not Secure" text. I
don't see a big difference there and I hope we can ship this as soon
as possible.
On Fri, Feb
I plan on landing this today, so this change is going to be in Firefox
60. The pref for enabling/disabling this feature is
javascript.options.array_prototype_values.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> I talked to Jan de Mooij and it's feasible to add a pref for this,
t any additional problems.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>> Any additional ideas how to mitigate the risk here? Chrome seems to
>> want to add a kill pref for this, from my experience more difficult
>> for
We already tried to ship Array.prototype.values before in Firefox 48,
but this broke
Microsoft Dynamics CRM 2011
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1299593). We are however
aware this might have caused other breakages as well.
The compatibility risk for this change is high.
However Chro
This could be an issue for WebExtensions as well. I think the contentscript
sandbox runs in a different compartment.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 05:29, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>
>> For use in the meantime, I just landed bug 1428531 on inbound, which a
There are also various Firefox extensions that can manage 2 factor accounts
for you.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Byron Jones wrote:
> TOTP does not require a smartphone.
>
> there's software TOTP clients that can be run on your desktop, and i'm
> also seeing TOTP support baked into some pass
Please don't use proxies unnecessarily. They are bad for performance.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Joe Hildebrand
wrote:
> You could also potentially use a Proxy object:
>
> https://gist.github.com/hildjj/1ac6e3d52e4e0d23f6289d73c1840a5a
>
> > On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Richard Newman wro
Hey!
Let me start by saying that to me Quantum Flow felt like hugely important
work that made an immediate impact on how people perceive Firefox
performance.
I am really excited that we are going to continue working on this.
You often hear people complaining about performance on YouTube and Twitc
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/384
> [3] (and also the `security.webauth.u2f_enable_softtoken` preference,
> since there's no USB support in-tree yet)
>
> Cheers,
> J.C.
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>
>> So what's our st
So what's our status with regards to implementing FIDO u2f? I really would
like to use my security key natively in Firefox.
Best,
Tom
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:27:30 PM UTC+1, JC Jones wrote:
> > An
To simplify parsing ES 2016 disallows "use strict" in functions with
non-simple parameters, like defaults or rest.
For example `function f(a = 1) { "use strict"; }` is going to start
throwing.
Chrome, JSC and Edge already made this change.
Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127278
This is so great. Thank you!
On Feb 25, 2016 12:35 AM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are, officially, and starting today with the landing of bug 1250294,
> moving away from autoconf. This is not going to happen overnight, and it
> is going to be painful, but the first step has just been made,
Seems like this kind of died. I still would like to see this happening. Is
this on somebody's agenda?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
> I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged.
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud wrote:
>
>
Jan just disabled __noSucnMethod__ on Nightly (Firefox 44).
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧
wrote:
> On 3/6/2015 10:44 AM, Jan De Mooij wrote:
>
>> We've deprecated [0] __noSuchMethod__ [1] support in SpiderMonkey. It's a
>> non-standard feature that no other engine supports, an
I think that would fail as well, because the let would be shadowing the
global x, which isn't allowed.
On Sep 18, 2015 2:25 PM, "Neil" wrote:
> Shu-yu Guo wrote:
>
> Good catch and thanks for the correction! The take-home from the example is
>> that: due to the global lexical scope, a TDZ error c
Thanks guys for fixing this.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Muizelaar
wrote:
> AMD bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189266
> Nvidia bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189940
>
> -Jeff
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Tom
Hey,
people on reddit.com/r/firefox are reporting a fair amount of graphics
related issues.
It seems like most of it boils down to newly blacklisted drivers?
Is there a bug for this somewhere?
Thanks,
Tom
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists
Please remember that the ES6 iteration protocol can only be used with
for-of.
On Jul 28, 2015 1:20 PM, "Paolo Amadini" wrote:
> On 7/23/2015 4:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> I might be missing something, but why is __iterator__ and the
>> nonstandard iteration protocol needed for this?
>>
>
> I
I see 3 (now 4) old pull requests that are unmerged.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Anthony Ricaud wrote:
> On 16/07/15 21:26, Anthony Ricaud wrote:
>
>> Potch and I are working on a website to present Mozilla's point of view
>> on various web platform features. Other browsers have similar web
Hello!
We have an old JS extension that allows objects to modify how they behave
when used with for-in. However this extension will never make it into ES6
and is actually incompatible with how iteration is defined there. So please
don't use __iterator__anymore.
I would really appreciate your help
I think the ribbon would be really useful if it allowed the user to restore
the previous clipboard content. However this is probably not possible for
all data that can be stored in clipboards, i.e. files.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:40 PM,
Hello!
I am interested in making the Qt toolkit usable again, especially on Linux.
While I don't think we can ever actually use it for more platforms, except
maybe some mobile devices, it is still something I care about. For that
reason I am trying to avoid X11 specific code. At the moment I am mo
Sounds like you would use nsIDOMWindowUtils.loadSheet for that.
-Tom
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2014-06-06 00:30 -0700, Matthew Gertner wrote:
> > As things stand, it should be possible for responsible extensions such
> as ours (we implement our own nsICo
> - Add-ons are going to break in both projects. We need to take the
developer community's pain into consideration.
What is the problem with addons and win64, binary addons? For e10s JS-only
addons are problematic as well, so the level of problems we can expect here
are quite different.
I don't th
I recently saw this bug about implementing navigator.getFeature, wouldn't
it make sense for this to be like hardware.memory, but hardware.cores?
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ehsan Akhgari >wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 AM,
The design looks really fresh, I really like the new colors. I am however
wondering about additional spaces that were introduced, they seem to even
break indentation:
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/jsapi.cpp#1426.
-Tom
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Erik Rose wrote:
> >
I refactorted and debugged most of the findbar code. Mike seems to the de
facto owner, so I think it makes sense for me to do reviews. I doubt
anybody else knows much about the code. There seems to be no submodule for
it anyway?
On Jan 19, 2014 10:40 PM, "Matthew N." wrote:
> Thanks for clarifyin
I don't use Terminals for programming, I have the space for 100 chars. I
also usually don't open more than one window at a time. I usually just
switch between files very quickly if I need to correlate something.
Everytime single time I create a patch that touches a lot of code Gecko, I
feel like 80
Here is the CPOW test that creates a remote browser:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/test/chrome/test_cpows.xul
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Neil wrote:
> Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>
> In theory, this is as easy as or > remote>, or something like that. But I've
Do we run JS code in these? I can imagine all sorts of things that
would cause a crash if JS code can invoke random dom apis. I however
very happy that we are testing in a limited
fashion with this.
Tom
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> I've mentioned this at the engineering
You can ignore unnecessary roots. They don't hurt us right now and we
can fix them after everything else is done.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> There are a ton of messages in that list of the following form:
>
> Function 'foo' has unnecessary root 'bar' in 'baz.cpp:123'
>
, smaug wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 04:07 PM, Tom Schuster wrote:
>>
>> At the moment it's really just Jono working full time on this, and
>> terrence and other people reviewing. This stuff is actually quite easy
>> and you can expect really fast review times from our side.
At the moment it's really just Jono working full time on this, and
terrence and other people reviewing. This stuff is actually quite easy
and you can expect really fast review times from our side.
In some parts of the code rooting could literally just mean to replace
JS::Value to JS::RootedValue a
I agree, it is also super tedious to set up and update. You always
have to remember to go to /prototype and sometimes you need to clear
the caching of the pages that include it. I think some these pages
sometimes have extra information that is not included in the main
page, but I doubt many people
47 matches
Mail list logo
