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
The only Pepper plug-in worth talking about is the Flash Player. The Flash
Player that ships in Chrome is developed by Google and distributed with the
Chrome browser. That is, Adobe doesn't make this Pepper plug-in and has no
installers for Firefox users to use. In other words, Pepper support do
17 matches
Mail list logo
