tered with AsyncShutdown had finished
shutting down, we could call _exit(0).
Cheers,
David
On 30/06/16 17:41, Aaron Klotz wrote:
> Did the now-defunct exit(0) project ever come up in this discussion?
>
> See bugs 662444 and 826143. This was a perf team project back in the
> Snap
, September 2.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla
s, a problem that has also occurred on other tests,
tracked in different bugs). This encourages ignoring the bugs and
just looking at orangefactor for what's interesting/relevant.
2. spreading out a single problem across >100 bugs [1] leads to the
severity of that problem being ignor
On Monday 2016-08-29 17:21 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
>
> Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group
> https://www.w3.org/Style/2016/css-2016.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Aug/.html
>
s or objections through
this Friday, September 30.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’
On Thursday 2016-09-29 10:42 +0200, Ms2ger wrote:
> On 29/09/16 03:02, L. David Baron wrote:
> > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
> >
> > Web Platform Working Group (formerly Web Applications WG & HTML WG)
> > https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform
ncubation to be in their charter scope.
Or are these things that are just starting out rather than things
that have been in progress for a while? (That seems unlikely, since
I've been hearing about some of them for quite a while.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http:
On Friday 2016-09-30 14:02 -0700, Tantek Γelik wrote:
> Also, just found this in the charter:
> announcement
> Not really acceptable.
I think it should link to the same URL as the other "(announcement)"
link.
-David
--
π L. David Baron
e at this stage.)
Note that this specification is somewhat controversial for various
reasons, mainly related to the forking of the specification from the
WHATWG copy, the quality of the work done on it since the fork, and
some of the particular modifications that have been made since that
fork.
-Da
the first
time at this stage.)
I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the
specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involvement
in stabilizing the "release branch" to be a Level 1 recommendation.
-David
--
π L. David Baron
for, or whether this is more of a (set of?) research
projects. W3C has an existing Interest Group (not a Working Group,
so not designed to write Recommendation-track specifications) in
this area: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/ .
-David
--
π L. David Baron ht
On Tuesday 2016-10-11 07:07 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the
> > specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involvement
> >
Recommendation every so often so
that it's unambiguous that they're covered by the W3C's patent
policy.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I
The use cases for column-span that I've seen have also felt like
workarounds for lack of proper section markup. If developers want a
column layout for their sections, they should specify that.
-David
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-4, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > On
-11
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
-David
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C
> > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final
> > stage of being a W3C Rec
The comments submitted on HTML 5.1 are archived at:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0003.html
-David
On Thursday 2016-10-13 17:35 -0700, Tantek Γelik wrote:
> For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51
The comments I submitted on the WoT charter are archived at:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html
-David
On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> We collected some feedback in a document
> <https://docs.google
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
Mozilla does have participants in this group:
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=74168&public=1&order=org#_MozillaFound
/dbwg/details?group=46884&public=1&order=org#_MozillaFoundation
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was wal
illa being involved in the discussions that led to this charter.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was wallin
es to make comments, so
it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first
time at this stage.)
(This is something we implement in Gecko, although I'm not sure if
we implement everything in the spec, or how involved Mozilla folks
have been in the spec process.)
-Davi
I've submitted a response in support of the charter, without
comments.
-David
On Monday 2016-10-24 10:47 +0800, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote:
> Support revised charter.
>
> The revised charter creates some flexibility for us to promote Flyweb as a
> new feature in Presentation API L
perlink
> more specifically as well.
>
> * Or, if no such community group exists, make it clearer that it's
> a hypothetical community group.
(and record it as a support-with-optional-changes).
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozill
ntal issues for the first
time at this stage.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
e for comments is end of Monday, US Eastern Time.)
-David
We're concerned enough about the security and privacy aspects of
this charter and the associated work that we believe this effort is
not currently ready to begin development on the Recommendation
track.
We have a number of concerns
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
This group is a proposed reformulation of the current Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) working group.
-David
--
π L. David
OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position
(mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the
end).
-David
[X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be
created [Formal Objection] (your details below).
We're concerned en
in support or formally
object to something, please say so in this thread. (I'd note,
however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make
comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage.)
-David
--
gnized" status mean,
and how does it differ from "Shipped"?
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was w
Web compatibility risk.
If you're analyzing that risk, it doesn't matter what developer
tools do. What matters is whether the presence of the properties in
Web content does something that we also need to do if we want the
content to behave in the same way.
I can't tell from you
there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I&
there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I&
On Friday 2016-12-09 18:12 -1000, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
Please ignore this thread, sorry. I resent the SVG charter with a
correct subject line.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozi
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozill
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozill
.
Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozill
On Friday 2016-12-09 18:15 -1000, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
>
> Web Security Interest Group
> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/websec-ig.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Nov/0009.html
OK, please a
this thread if you think there's something we should
say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
support or oppose it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozill
ation. (I'd note,
however, that there have been previous opportunities to make
comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage, although that's a little less true
now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.)
-Davi
owdependencytree.cgi?id=1312613&maxdepth=1&hide_resolved=0
I'm in support of shipping this work, assuming that the performance
concerns that delayed it have been addressed.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla
usual poorly-written spec language in CSS level 2, and it's
overridden by the more specific language that actually says how
overflow handling should work.
> 4) overflow:auto is ignored both in interpretation and scrollbar implications
No idea what you mean by this.
But I'm pretty
as part of the implementation
>
> Security & Privacy Concerns: none
Sounds good to me, except that I think it's worth explicitly raising
on www-style that we're planning to ship this, since the spec for it
isn't yet in (or near) CR. (The bug says th
ced via image, when used as a background-image or
border-image, etc.?
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I wa
fact that they *don't* work on blocks.
I'm happy to see this happen sooner rather than later, to reduce
this risk.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I buil
Here's an attempt to write up comments to submit on this charter.
I'm not sure I understood ekr's reply to mt, though. So corrections
and clarifications are certainly welcome.
Sorry for the delay circling back to this.
-David
We don't think the W3C should be putt
first time at this stage, although that's a little less true
now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.)
I suspect Tantek is in support given that he's a co-chair of the
working group.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.or
x27;d note,
however, that there have been previous opportunities to make
comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage, although that's a little less true
now that the review is taking place against a CR rather than a PR.)
-David
--
nst a CR rather than a PR.)
However, I'd note that I'm inclined to abstain from this review.
This is a set of XML-related work that's happening at W3C and isn't
particularly related to the browser world these days.
-David
--
π L. David Baron h
r from somebody
knowledgable about the spec and our implementation before just doing
that.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
s, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage.)
My inclination is to abstain from this review, but could probably be
convinced to send other forms of supportive response.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://
OK, I sent the response far enough before the deadline (which is
Sunday January 15) that other W3C members may have a chance to see
it before the deadline:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Dec/0010.html
-David
--
π L. David Baron http
are for |make check| tests? They should be, and the fewer tests you
currently have, the easier it is to make them fatal.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
__
mplementations, influencing other implementations through standards
processes, and influencing other implementations in other ways.
That said, it seems like it may be worth pushing on the cases we
know about before shipping to a beta/release audience. It also
might be worth removing Co
g in Firefox::General.
And I think appropriate guiding for Web developers filing bugs
against the rendering engine is an important case.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
On Tuesday 2013-03-19 12:19 +0800, Byron Jones wrote:
> L. David Baron wrote:
> >I'd actually like to see Core higher on the list for the
> >no-canconfirm case. I think it's common for reasonably
> >well-informed Web developers (who would have been able to choose a
s
also dev-planning rather than dev-platform?
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozill
se many
builds and tests get merged on inbound when things are behind. (I
also don't feel like we need a full build/test run for every push,
so it feels like unnecessary use of resources to me.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozil
. Please reply to this thread if you think there's
something we should say.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
dev-platform mailing lis
d say.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinf
reply to this thread if you think there's
something we should say.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-pla
On Friday 2013-04-05 09:45 -0400, David Humphrey wrote:
> On 13-04-04 5:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> >W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web and TV Interest
> >For more details, see:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Mar/0008.html
> &g
On Friday 2013-04-05 12:19 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Performance Working
> > Group. For more details, see:
> > http://www.w3.org/2013/01/webperf.html
> > h
;s somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues
for the first time at this stage.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
dev-platf
ng bookmarks; the way of checking that
I'm pushing the right thing is to run "hg out" before "hg push" (as
one should always do... and as I don't know how to do in git).
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla
t; how much of a perf problem those large prefs tend to be, actually.
>
> Robert Kaiser
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo
cgi?id=863732 in
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9ec0ad6f7e09 ,
though I don't know the bad changeset on the other half.
I've reopened the trees.
-David
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
> > The latest merge from m-c to inboun
oughly tested yet.
> Another question: are the write tasks queued and completed in order, or can
> two writeAtomic calls to the same file race each other and the 2nd call
> finish first (only to have the 1st call finish and write older data)
All tasks to OS.File are queued and completed
On 5/13/13 10:20 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> On 5/10/13 10:45 PM, Felipe Gomes wrote:
>> Hi, does OS.File guarantees that write tasks that have started will be
>> completed if a shutdown occurs? My use case is for writeAtomic but I'm
>> interested about the
and it
> varies case by case (or anything goes that works and is early enough..)
profile-before-change should be good. Any OS.File call posted before
xpcom-shutdown will be completed before we exit Firefox.
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller
many cases that's more trouble than it's worth; there are many
things we know we'll need during startup, and it's not worth the
extra overhead of checking every time if we've already called
getService.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaro
On 5/16/13 2:26 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> David Rajchenbach-Teller schrieb:
>> I'd even go as far as limiting it to 16kb.
>> (possibly with a transition phase during which going above 16kb only
>> prints warnings)
>
> I think most of us agree, but the problem is t
er, I believe that we need to make dependencies somewhat explicit,
otherwise we will at some point end up with unsatisfiable implicit
dependencies and we will need large refactorings to get around these.
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
_
urce://gre/modules/commonjs/
I would like to place worker modules in
resource://gre/modules/workers/
Any comments?
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla
that we
are about to break your add-on, please inform us asap, so that we can
work out a solution.
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https
On Friday 2013-02-08 14:37 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group.
> For more details, see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
>
> Mozilla has
changes, though, having
a kill switch pretty much means forking the code of Session Restore into
an "old" session restore and a new one.
Do we have a policy on these things?
Cheers,
David
On 5/22/13 5:16 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Do we have a kill switch for the new stuff (a build
single file, it might
make sense to just backout the changes if necessary.
Cheers,
David
On 5/22/13 3:35 PM, Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
> Policy[1] is that whenever something lands on central, it is the
> developer's responsibility to provide for the ability to turn it off.
> Usual
It should be possible to share some modules between Jetpack and Workers,
for Jetpack modules that do not depend on DOM or XPCOM and Worker
modules that do not depend on Worker-only code. This is not an immediate
goal, but it is considered a-would-be-nice-to-have.
Cheers,
David
On 5/20/13 8:53
Expect the complicated patch to become more
complicated :)
Cheers,
David
> - Tim
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Well, if we do not want the main thread to collapse under its weight, we
have to move code off the main thread and to encourage add-ons to do
likewise.
I'm not sure I see an alternative here.
Cheers,
David
On 5/24/13 1:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> My main concern is that Workers cr
Weren't we moving addons into separate processes anyway?
This has been discussed, but I haven't heard from this since in ages.
> / Jonas
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
aurora, mozilla-beta) to ensure their
pushes are green, at least the trees that people are required to
watch should be closed enough time in advance of things going down
so that this doesn't happen (as for all downtimes like this).
-David
--
π L. David Baron http:/
g the main thread. It seems
possible, but this requires synchronization with the Gfx team.
Best regards,
David
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 6/18/13 3:01 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:10 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller
> wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, we are doubling both network and disk
>> activity (possibly CPU activity, too) for this purpose. Performance- and
>> battery-wise, tha
at just needs to be written by an author into an
.htaccess file or python script.)
But I'm not sure if that's the answer you were thinking of.
(Also, I hope to send more comments on the proposal soon.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://db
coverage tools separately on standards-compliance
test suites might also be interesting, e.g., to see what sort of
coverage the test suite for a particular specification gives us, and
whether there are tests we could contribute to improve it.
-David
--
π L. David Baron
marized in less than
about 100-150 characters, should have a short summary on the
first line and a longer description on later lines)
* write good code comments that describe the state of the new code,
and if the patch is of nontrivial size, point to the important
comments in the non-fir
e-reviews, I wish bugzilla had a way to indicate that,
since I often get re-reviews long enough after the original review
that I've forgotten it's a re-review. And I prefer to prioritize
re-reviews highest because it helps me get through the reviews
faster, since it will be faster
hich failures are
caused by it, particularly after the fact. See, for example, the
script in:
https://hg.mozilla.org/users/dbaron_mozilla.com/bad-slaves/
which was written for:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787281
and could certainly be improved further.
-David
--
π
means doing code reviews rather
than doing things like reading email or responding to this thread.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
___
ormal objection earlier in the process, whose history
is documented in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0057.html
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla http://
,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
move
constructors, and we'd just return them, and the move constructors
plus return value optimizations would take care of avoiding excess
reference counting?
Or does it involve something more complicated like returning rvalue
references? (Is such a thing possible?)
-David
--
π
on
interest in converging
* we're under significant pressure to implement the feature
immediately
(I haven't yet decided whether to grant review as
-moz-font-smoothing, -moz-osx-font-smoothing, or to leave the choice
up to the patch author, but I plan to decide that soon.)
It's been a while, though.
(See bug 64023.)
khuey was also recently working on something to reduce some pretty
bad #include fanout related to the new DOM bindings generation.
(I'm not sure if it's landed.)
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
f directly. Any relevant information emerging from
> the discussion will be summarized in a new project update.
>
> Cheers,
> Paolo
>
Will this break the Preserve Download Modification Timestamp extension
at <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/222517/>?
--
David
This definitely makes sense.
In the JS implementation, assuming main thread only, we should be able
to rig together a finalizer/warning using XPCOM.
Cheers,
David
On 8/9/13 3:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Well, the obvious other thing would be window.onerror. But that might
> be tough,
uot;cared about"
> configurations as close to N as possible.
But, as I said above, those configurations evolve over time.
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before
ething();
};
/* virtual */ void
Foo::do_something()
{
}
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was wallin
hould we have some
other mechanism (like having standalone builds and showing them on
tbpl)?
-David
--
π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π
π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π
Before I built a wall I'd ask to kn
501 - 600 of 1097 matches
Mail list logo
