Johnathan Nightingale schrieb:
Benjamin blogged with what's actually happening:
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2013/09/24/plugin-activation-in-firefox/
Hmm, I would have expected that to appear on Planet Mozilla Projects,
but I don't see it there...
Robert Kaiser
_
On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Yuhong Bao wrote:
>
>> Brian Smith writes:
>>> Note in particular, this quote from that article: "Furthermore, Mozilla
>>> plans to block NPAPI plug-ins in December 2013."
>>>
>>> People are asking me abou
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> Brian Smith writes:
> > Note in particular, this quote from that article: "Furthermore, Mozilla
> > plans to block NPAPI plug-ins in December 2013."
> >
> > People are asking me about that on Twitter now.
> Looks like it came from the original
On Monday, September 23, 2013 3:56:52 PM UTC-7, Brian Smith wrote:
> Just to re-iterate: I am not saying we should/must do a Pepper Flash Player
> in Firefox. I am not particularly for or against it.
Get back off the fence :-P.
We are not going to do Active G now, any more than we were going to d
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2013-09-23 4:29 PM, Hubert Figuière wrote:
>
>> PS: I truly believe that we should drop plugin support all together, but
>> that's not what I'm discussing here.
>>
>
> I think if we think our options going forward are "implement PPAPI" an
On 2013-09-23 4:29 PM, Hubert Figuière wrote:
PS: I truly believe that we should drop plugin support all together, but
that's not what I'm discussing here.
I think if we think our options going forward are "implement PPAPI" and
"dump plugins altogether", we should seriously consider both.
Ha
Brian Smith writes:
> Note in particular, this quote from that article: "Furthermore, Mozilla
> plans to block NPAPI plug-ins in December 2013."
>
> People are asking me about that on Twitter now.
Looks like it came from the original source:
http://blog.chromium.org/2013/09/saying-goodbye-to-our-
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> I am making the assumption for now that Flash is the main thing we don't
> have a solution for.
In the present tense, we have neither Pepper nor Shumway shipping.
Considering what we'll have in the future, do you have a reason to
believe Shumw
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> On 9/23/13 2:41 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> Even if Firefox supported the Pepper API, we would still need a Pepper
> version of Flash. And Adobe doesn't have one; Google does.
>
> When I was an engineer on Adobe's Flash Player team, Googl
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 9/23/2013 4:59 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
>
>> Given that Pepper presents little benefit to users,
>>>
>>
>> Pepper presents a huge benefit to users because it allows the browser to
>> sandbox the plugin. Once we have a sandbox in Firefox,
On 9/23/13 2:41 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
* That "the plugin" is only Flash. No other plugin has Pepper or is
likely to use pepper. And a significant number of users are still using
non-Flash plugins.
* That we could have a pepper Flash for Firefox in a reasonable
timeframe (highly unlikely gi
On 9/23/2013 4:59 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
Given that Pepper presents little benefit to users,
Pepper presents a huge benefit to users because it allows the browser to
sandbox the plugin. Once we have a sandbox in Firefox, NPAPI plugins will
be the security weak spot in Firefox.
You're making so
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> On 9/23/2013 4:29 PM, Hubert Figuière wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today Google said they'd drop NPAPI for good.
>>
> We also intend to someday drop NPAPI for good. I don't think that "by the
> end of 2014" is a realistic timeline for either
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> The costs of Pepper are huge: it is not a well-specified API; we'd be
> reverse-engineering large bits of chromium code in order to support it, and
> it's clear that we want to focus effort on the web not Pepper.
I asked some Chromium g
Pepper is not an API, its basically a huge set of Chromium guts exposed you can
link against. The only documentation is the source, and that source keeps
constantly changing. I don't think its viable for anyone to implement Pepper
without also pulling in most or all of Chromium. Pepper is Chrom
On 9/23/2013 4:29 PM, Hubert Figuière wrote:
Hi all,
Today Google said they'd drop NPAPI for good.
We also intend to someday drop NPAPI for good. I don't think that "by
the end of 2014" is a realistic timeline for either Chrome or us, given
the number of users who still rely on Java and other
.mozilla.org
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 1:29:14 PM
Subject: Implementing Pepper since Google is dropping NPAPI for good
Hi all,
Today Google said they'd drop NPAPI for good.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57604242-93/google-begins-barring-browser-plug-ins-from-chrome/
Bug 729481 wa
Hi all,
Today Google said they'd drop NPAPI for good.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57604242-93/google-begins-barring-browser-plug-ins-from-chrome/
Bug 729481 was WONTFIXED a while ago. tl;dr : implement Pepper plugin API
I think it might be worth the revisit that decision before it is too l
18 matches
Mail list logo
